info
Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Syrian refugee crisis and American Jews
219 views
Skip to first unread message
topazgalaxy
Dec 6, 2015, 10:10:17 AM12/6/15
to
http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2015/12/american_jews_betrayed_by_their_leaders_again.html
Maybe, indeed, it is time for American Jews to be concerned as to what is safest for us regarding immigration from sharia compliant countries.
As Jews , do we really want to have neighbors who treat us like the Palestinians treat Israel?
Maybe, indeed, it is time for American Jews to be concerned as to what is safest for us regarding immigration from sharia compliant countries.
As Jews , do we really want to have neighbors who treat us like the Palestinians treat Israel?
mm
Dec 6, 2015, 12:31:28 PM12/6/15
to
On Sun, 6 Dec 2015 15:15:42 +0000 (UTC), topazgalaxy
<topaz...@gmail.com> wrote:
>http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2015/12/american_jews_betrayed_by_their_leaders_again.html
It isn't betrayal unless the person doing it knows or believes that
what he's doing will hurt the others in his group, the ones he's
allegedly betraying.
And she has this brainless idea that "They prefer burnishing their
liberal credentials and parroting the views of a Democratic president
to their duty to sound the alarm about the harm to American Jews from
bringing to the US Syrian Muslims, who have been raised in a culture
of virulent anti-Semitism." As if she knows their motives. But she's
so stupid that she's forgotten that the people she's criticizing, in
vile terms, live here too, and their children live here too, and
they wouldn't be doing this if they didn't think it was right and
didn't think the results would be good.
I'll tell you what I told my friend earlier this week. I wish there
were no Syrians coming (to the USA) and I wish the Arabs who are here
now would leave, because eventually Arabs will start participating
fully in politics and some may well want to change the US policy wrt
to Israel. I'm glad that, despite what some people think, the policy
isn't based on Jewish lobbying or political contributions. If it were
we'd see a difference between areas where Jews contribute and lobby
and those they don't. While it may be fine-tuned by lobbying, it's
based on deeply and independently held views on the part of
Congressment and Presidents.
"But like the President, they do not care about the Syrians. If the
President had cared about the Syrian people, he would have enforced
his famous red line when Assad was gassing and bombing his people."
Another stupid remark, repeated by many political oppponents of his.
First, there was no red line regarding bombing, so iirc, that part is
pretty much a lie. Second, he didn't say what he would do if they
crossed a red line. Others may thought he meant invasion but he
didn't say that. Third, what he did do is destroy the poison gas that
was his objection in the first place. The US probably destroyed 100
times what got used in that one occasion, so Assad won't use it and
neither will whoever takes over from Assad eventually or whoever takes
over from that group, and so on. Americans raised on cowboy movies
and war movies and crime movies want to see the bad guy taken out.
That was the driving force in attacking Saddam Hussein, but it's not
always the right thing to do.
>Maybe, indeed, it is time for American Jews to be concerned as to what is safest for us regarding immigration from sharia compliant countries.
>
>As Jews , do we really want to have neighbors who treat us like the Palestinians treat Israel?
>
As phrased, more nonsense.
BTW, it's been two years since Obamacare was passed. Have you had
trouble making a doctor's appointment? That was one of your
concerns. I've needed an endrocrinologist and a surgeon and I had no
trouble finding the first and I met with 2 surgeons and had a third
possibility before I picked one.
<topaz...@gmail.com> wrote:
>http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2015/12/american_jews_betrayed_by_their_leaders_again.html
It isn't betrayal unless the person doing it knows or believes that
what he's doing will hurt the others in his group, the ones he's
allegedly betraying.
And she has this brainless idea that "They prefer burnishing their
liberal credentials and parroting the views of a Democratic president
to their duty to sound the alarm about the harm to American Jews from
bringing to the US Syrian Muslims, who have been raised in a culture
of virulent anti-Semitism." As if she knows their motives. But she's
so stupid that she's forgotten that the people she's criticizing, in
vile terms, live here too, and their children live here too, and
they wouldn't be doing this if they didn't think it was right and
didn't think the results would be good.
I'll tell you what I told my friend earlier this week. I wish there
were no Syrians coming (to the USA) and I wish the Arabs who are here
now would leave, because eventually Arabs will start participating
fully in politics and some may well want to change the US policy wrt
to Israel. I'm glad that, despite what some people think, the policy
isn't based on Jewish lobbying or political contributions. If it were
we'd see a difference between areas where Jews contribute and lobby
and those they don't. While it may be fine-tuned by lobbying, it's
based on deeply and independently held views on the part of
Congressment and Presidents.
"But like the President, they do not care about the Syrians. If the
President had cared about the Syrian people, he would have enforced
his famous red line when Assad was gassing and bombing his people."
Another stupid remark, repeated by many political oppponents of his.
First, there was no red line regarding bombing, so iirc, that part is
pretty much a lie. Second, he didn't say what he would do if they
crossed a red line. Others may thought he meant invasion but he
didn't say that. Third, what he did do is destroy the poison gas that
was his objection in the first place. The US probably destroyed 100
times what got used in that one occasion, so Assad won't use it and
neither will whoever takes over from Assad eventually or whoever takes
over from that group, and so on. Americans raised on cowboy movies
and war movies and crime movies want to see the bad guy taken out.
That was the driving force in attacking Saddam Hussein, but it's not
always the right thing to do.
>Maybe, indeed, it is time for American Jews to be concerned as to what is safest for us regarding immigration from sharia compliant countries.
>
>As Jews , do we really want to have neighbors who treat us like the Palestinians treat Israel?
>
BTW, it's been two years since Obamacare was passed. Have you had
trouble making a doctor's appointment? That was one of your
concerns. I've needed an endrocrinologist and a surgeon and I had no
trouble finding the first and I met with 2 surgeons and had a third
possibility before I picked one.
(PeteCresswell)
Dec 6, 2015, 1:47:15 PM12/6/15
to
Per topazgalaxy:
of The Economist (page 24 Nov 28th-Dec 4th) ?
Seems like a worthy thread-starter to me...
--
Pete Cresswell
>Maybe, indeed, it is time for American Jews to be concerned as to what is safest for us regarding immigration from sharia compliant countries.
Anybody else read the "This Land is My Land" article in the latest issue
of The Economist (page 24 Nov 28th-Dec 4th) ?
Seems like a worthy thread-starter to me...
--
Pete Cresswell
topazgalaxy
Dec 6, 2015, 2:38:57 PM12/6/15
to
SNIP FOR LENGTH
I never said I would have trouble FOR MYSELF getting a doctor's visit.
My co pays for medicines have skyrocketed, my deductible has skyrocketed,
and I met met many other people who have had the same issues.
My copays for specialists have skyrocketed-- that used to be zero--
and I have co pays for ultrasounds and CT scans which I never had before.
Plus I have met many , many people with chronic diseases who due to high deductibles will not go to the doctor three or four times a year as medically directed because they do not want to pay the deductible, plus they refuse the blood work that the doctor orders because they are afraid that it will go into their deductible. So they are disobeying the doctors.
The people who benefited are people who had expensive health conditions before Obamacare, who could not get insurance. Now they got insurance, and due to the predictable high cost of such patients, and the relatively poor turnout of the young healthy patients signing up (why should they?so many of them get free insurance on Mom and Dad's plans til age 26) the insurance companies are often having money problems, and it is effecting the rest of us. Insurance co-ops are collapsing financially...and those covered patients are losing their plans as the company collapses.
(BTW N Y state did not really need the federal law regarding pre existing conditions because in NY people have had coverage since the mid 1990s
even with pre existing conditions and were not turned away. That was one reason NY insurance premiums were so high compared to the other states).
Oh and thanks to Obamacare , my out-of-network coverage just went from 80% to ZERO. My prior plan-- no longer exists. It is gone, period. I did the research and I also got expert help..my old plan is gone.
But yes, I can get a doctor's appointment...but if that doctor is 'out of network" I pay 100% of the bill. So yes, I can get an appointment, because CASH still works.
And yes, in spite of all the co pay and deductible increases, my premiums shot up again. Double digits.
My insurance before Obamacare -- no copay for CT scans, no co pays for sonograms, no specialist co pays, medicines were a 5 dollar copay and I had out of network coverage all over the USA, with a trivial deductible for the year. But that is all gone now...thanks to Obamacare.
For so many people I have met, Obamacare insurance is OK...until you have to use it.
And on the exchanges/Medicaid, there is a major academic hospital near me that would rather take a patient who has NO insurance at all than take at patient with one of the bronze plans on the exchanges. IOW, this is a hospital that for years would take all comers including people with zero insurance.
Now , they still take people with zero insurance, but they refuse to take people with one of the bronze plans on the government exchanges because the payment is that lousy.
Yup and the Prez said "if you like your hospital you can keep your hospital, if you like your insurance you can keep it..."
>
> BTW, it's been two years since Obamacare was passed. Have you had
> trouble making a doctor's appointment? That was one of your
> concerns. I've needed an endrocrinologist and a surgeon and I had no
> trouble finding the first and I met with 2 surgeons and had a third
> possibility before I picked one.
Don't get me started on Obamacare.
> BTW, it's been two years since Obamacare was passed. Have you had
> trouble making a doctor's appointment? That was one of your
> concerns. I've needed an endrocrinologist and a surgeon and I had no
> trouble finding the first and I met with 2 surgeons and had a third
> possibility before I picked one.
I never said I would have trouble FOR MYSELF getting a doctor's visit.
My co pays for medicines have skyrocketed, my deductible has skyrocketed,
and I met met many other people who have had the same issues.
My copays for specialists have skyrocketed-- that used to be zero--
and I have co pays for ultrasounds and CT scans which I never had before.
Plus I have met many , many people with chronic diseases who due to high deductibles will not go to the doctor three or four times a year as medically directed because they do not want to pay the deductible, plus they refuse the blood work that the doctor orders because they are afraid that it will go into their deductible. So they are disobeying the doctors.
The people who benefited are people who had expensive health conditions before Obamacare, who could not get insurance. Now they got insurance, and due to the predictable high cost of such patients, and the relatively poor turnout of the young healthy patients signing up (why should they?so many of them get free insurance on Mom and Dad's plans til age 26) the insurance companies are often having money problems, and it is effecting the rest of us. Insurance co-ops are collapsing financially...and those covered patients are losing their plans as the company collapses.
(BTW N Y state did not really need the federal law regarding pre existing conditions because in NY people have had coverage since the mid 1990s
even with pre existing conditions and were not turned away. That was one reason NY insurance premiums were so high compared to the other states).
Oh and thanks to Obamacare , my out-of-network coverage just went from 80% to ZERO. My prior plan-- no longer exists. It is gone, period. I did the research and I also got expert help..my old plan is gone.
But yes, I can get a doctor's appointment...but if that doctor is 'out of network" I pay 100% of the bill. So yes, I can get an appointment, because CASH still works.
And yes, in spite of all the co pay and deductible increases, my premiums shot up again. Double digits.
My insurance before Obamacare -- no copay for CT scans, no co pays for sonograms, no specialist co pays, medicines were a 5 dollar copay and I had out of network coverage all over the USA, with a trivial deductible for the year. But that is all gone now...thanks to Obamacare.
For so many people I have met, Obamacare insurance is OK...until you have to use it.
And on the exchanges/Medicaid, there is a major academic hospital near me that would rather take a patient who has NO insurance at all than take at patient with one of the bronze plans on the exchanges. IOW, this is a hospital that for years would take all comers including people with zero insurance.
Now , they still take people with zero insurance, but they refuse to take people with one of the bronze plans on the government exchanges because the payment is that lousy.
Yup and the Prez said "if you like your hospital you can keep your hospital, if you like your insurance you can keep it..."
Fred Goldstein
Dec 7, 2015, 12:16:55 AM12/7/15
to
On 12/6/2015 10:15 AM, topazgalaxy wrote:
> http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2015/12/american_jews_betrayed_by_their_leaders_again.html
>
>
>
> Maybe, indeed, it is time for American Jews to be concerned as to
> what is safest for us regarding immigration from sharia compliant
> countries.
Which does not include Syria.
> http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2015/12/american_jews_betrayed_by_their_leaders_again.html
>
>
>
> Maybe, indeed, it is time for American Jews to be concerned as to
> what is safest for us regarding immigration from sharia compliant
> countries.
> As Jews , do we really want to have neighbors who treat us like the
> Palestinians treat Israel?
ones most likely to NOT agree with the country's leadership?
Anti-Assad Syrians who do not support Daesh are the ones who are
fleeing. I'd be happy to have more in my neighborhood. They've gotten
more grief from crappy Arab dictators, and firsthand, than Israel has.
topazgalaxy
Dec 7, 2015, 9:26:36 AM12/7/15
to
Syria signed the 1990 Cairo Declaration (on Human Rights) so it agreed to sharia law and "human rights" under Islam.
IMHO, nonMuslims such as Hindus, Jews and Christians and Yazidis fleeing that part of the world should get top priority and the very frail, elderly, women and children should get priority. That is IF the USA feels that immigrants from that part of the world should be allowed in at all. The USA IMO has a right to decide who comes into our country....we need to have an intelligent and self preserving immigration policy.
I feel that in sharia countries the Jews, Christians and other religious minorities have been treated terribly for years while the world looked away.
We need to do everything possible to keep jihadists out of the USA
If that means keeping some innocent Muslims out, well, it is sad but it needs to be done.
Recently I heard that in Sweden they have thousands of people in the country as immigrants who are now going to be deported, however, the authorities cannot find them or trace them. I am sure the USA has even a larger problem. With what just happened in San Bernadino California, the USA has a right to self preservaton and to protect its citizens.
The woman jihadist in California clearly was not screened properly, or knew what to say when she came in.
And IMHO, comparing the Syrian refugees to the Jews fleeing WW II (which some people do) is a very inaccurate comparison.
Yisroel Markov
Dec 7, 2015, 3:59:05 PM12/7/15
to
On Sun, 6 Dec 2015 15:15:42 +0000 (UTC), topazgalaxy
refugees if, as a part of their entrance interview, they have to read
and sign something like the following statement in their native
language: 'I understand that I am entering a pluralistic and tolerant
country. I realize that this country most people don't respect my
religion in the same way as I do, don't wear as much clothing as I may
consider proper, and do other things that I may dislike. I understand
that if I do anything violent or forcible about the behavior of my
neighbors or my own family members that is legal in this country, such
behavior will be grounds for immediate deportation.'"
--
Yisroel "Godwrestler Warriorson" Markov - Boston, MA Member
www.reason.com -- for a sober analysis of the world DNRC
--------------------------------------------------------------------
"Judge, and be prepared to be judged" -- Ayn Rand
(PeteCresswell)
Dec 7, 2015, 5:18:01 PM12/7/15
to
Per Yisroel Markov:
proposition that they have a room with the holy book of every religion
laying on the floor and prospective immigrants have to do something
totally disrespectful to all of them - just to show they don't take
religion - *anybody's* religion *too* seriously.
--
Pete Cresswell
>As someone observed: "I'll be happy enough with admitting these
>refugees if, as a part of their entrance interview, they have to read
>and sign something like the following statement in their native
>language: 'I understand that I am entering a pluralistic and tolerant
>country. I realize that this country most people don't respect my
>religion in the same way as I do, don't wear as much clothing as I may
>consider proper, and do other things that I may dislike. I understand
>that if I do anything violent or forcible about the behavior of my
>neighbors or my own family members that is legal in this country, such
>behavior will be grounds for immediate deportation.'"
>--
That is more much better-spoken, more mature and more couth than my own
>refugees if, as a part of their entrance interview, they have to read
>and sign something like the following statement in their native
>language: 'I understand that I am entering a pluralistic and tolerant
>country. I realize that this country most people don't respect my
>religion in the same way as I do, don't wear as much clothing as I may
>consider proper, and do other things that I may dislike. I understand
>that if I do anything violent or forcible about the behavior of my
>neighbors or my own family members that is legal in this country, such
>behavior will be grounds for immediate deportation.'"
>--
proposition that they have a room with the holy book of every religion
laying on the floor and prospective immigrants have to do something
totally disrespectful to all of them - just to show they don't take
religion - *anybody's* religion *too* seriously.
--
Pete Cresswell
Fred Goldstein
Dec 7, 2015, 8:33:16 PM12/7/15
to
On 12/7/2015 9:32 AM, topazgalaxy wrote:
> On Monday, December 7, 2015 at 12:16:55 AM UTC-5, Fred Goldstein
> wrote:
...
> On Monday, December 7, 2015 at 12:16:55 AM UTC-5, Fred Goldstein
> wrote:
>> Anti-Assad Syrians who do not support Daesh are the ones who are
>> fleeing. I'd be happy to have more in my neighborhood. They've
>> gotten more grief from crappy Arab dictators, and firsthand, than
>> Israel has.
>
> http://en.reingex.com/Islam-Human-Rights.shtml
>
> Syria signed the 1990 Cairo Declaration (on Human Rights) so it
> agreed to sharia law and "human rights" under Islam.
And you actually believe that the Assad regime (not sure if it was Hafez
>> fleeing. I'd be happy to have more in my neighborhood. They've
>> gotten more grief from crappy Arab dictators, and firsthand, than
>> Israel has.
>
> http://en.reingex.com/Islam-Human-Rights.shtml
>
> Syria signed the 1990 Cairo Declaration (on Human Rights) so it
> agreed to sharia law and "human rights" under Islam.
or Bashir at that time) can be taken at its word?
> IMHO, nonMuslims such as Hindus, Jews and Christians and Yazidis
> fleeing that part of the world should get top priority and the
> very frail, elderly, women and children should get priority. That is
> IF the USA feels that immigrants from that part of the world should
> be allowed in at all. The USA IMO has a right to decide who
> comes into our country....we need to have an intelligent and self
> preserving immigration policy. I feel that in sharia countries the
> Jews, Christians and other religious minorities have been treated
> terribly for years while the world looked away.
>
the Muslims, but I wasn't a Muslim.
> We need to do everything possible to keep jihadists out of the USA If
> that means keeping some innocent Muslims out, well, it is sad but it
> needs to be done. Recently I heard that in Sweden they have
> thousands of people in the country as immigrants who are now going to
> be deported, however, the authorities cannot find them or trace them.
> I am sure the USA has even a larger problem. With what just
> happened in San Bernadino California, the USA has a right to self
> preservaton and to protect its citizens.
>
ol' American freedom-stick-lover. Like Christian terrorists who shoot
places up. The "Saudi Girl" he married may have radicalized him. She was
not a refugee; she came in as a citizen's foreign bride.
> The woman jihadist in California clearly was not screened properly,
> or knew what to say when she came in.
if the marriage is real, vs. a sham to get a visa, but for obvious
reasons doesn't impose religious tests.
> And IMHO, comparing the Syrian refugees to the Jews fleeing WW II
> (which some people do) is a very inaccurate comparison.
consider Syrians to be less worthy as humans.
Herman Rubin
Dec 8, 2015, 7:51:51 PM12/8/15
to
On 2015-12-07, Yisroel Markov <ey.m...@MUNGiname.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 6 Dec 2015 15:15:42 +0000 (UTC), topazgalaxy
><topaz...@gmail.com> said:
>>http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2015/12/american_jews_betrayed_by_their_leaders_again.html
>>Maybe, indeed, it is time for American Jews to be concerned as to what
is safest for us regarding immigration from sharia compliant countries.
>>As Jews , do we really want to have neighbors who treat us like the
Palestinians treat Israel?
> As someone observed: "I'll be happy enough with admitting these
> refugees if, as a part of their entrance interview, they have to read
> and sign something like the following statement in their native
> language: 'I understand that I am entering a pluralistic and tolerant
> country. I realize that this country most people don't respect my
> religion in the same way as I do, don't wear as much clothing as I may
> consider proper, and do other things that I may dislike. I understand
> that if I do anything violent or forcible about the behavior of my
not
> On Sun, 6 Dec 2015 15:15:42 +0000 (UTC), topazgalaxy
><topaz...@gmail.com> said:
>>http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2015/12/american_jews_betrayed_by_their_leaders_again.html
>>Maybe, indeed, it is time for American Jews to be concerned as to what
is safest for us regarding immigration from sharia compliant countries.
>>As Jews , do we really want to have neighbors who treat us like the
Palestinians treat Israel?
> As someone observed: "I'll be happy enough with admitting these
> refugees if, as a part of their entrance interview, they have to read
> and sign something like the following statement in their native
> language: 'I understand that I am entering a pluralistic and tolerant
> country. I realize that this country most people don't respect my
> religion in the same way as I do, don't wear as much clothing as I may
> consider proper, and do other things that I may dislike. I understand
> that if I do anything violent or forcible about the behavior of my
> neighbors or my own family members that is^legal in this country, such
> behavior will be grounds for immediate deportation.'"
I believe you left out a word.
--
This address is for information only. I do not claim that these views
are those of the Statistics Department or of Purdue University.
Herman Rubin, Department of Statistics, Purdue University
hru...@stat.purdue.edu Phone: (765)494-6054 FAX: (765)494-0558
topazgalaxy
Dec 9, 2015, 9:05:54 AM12/9/15
to
On Monday, December 7, 2015 at 8:33:16 PM UTC-5, Fred Goldstein wrote:
> On 12/7/2015 9:32 AM, topazgalaxy wrote:
> > On Monday, December 7, 2015 at 12:16:55 AM UTC-5, Fred Goldstein
> > wrote:
> ...
> >> Anti-Assad Syrians who do not support Daesh are the ones who are
> >> fleeing. I'd be happy to have more in my neighborhood. They've
> >> gotten more grief from crappy Arab dictators, and firsthand, than
> >> Israel has.
> >
> > http://en.reingex.com/Islam-Human-Rights.shtml
> >
> > Syria signed the 1990 Cairo Declaration (on Human Rights) so it
> > agreed to sharia law and "human rights" under Islam.
>
> And you actually believe that the Assad regime (not sure if it was Hafez
> or Bashir at that time) can be taken at its word?
Let me try to clarify. I do not like the Assad regime. He is a murderous leader, attacking his own citizens, and may have used chemical weapons against his own people (from what I have read, he is denying that...I do not believe him necessarily).
> On 12/7/2015 9:32 AM, topazgalaxy wrote:
> > On Monday, December 7, 2015 at 12:16:55 AM UTC-5, Fred Goldstein
> > wrote:
> ...
> >> Anti-Assad Syrians who do not support Daesh are the ones who are
> >> fleeing. I'd be happy to have more in my neighborhood. They've
> >> gotten more grief from crappy Arab dictators, and firsthand, than
> >> Israel has.
> >
> > http://en.reingex.com/Islam-Human-Rights.shtml
> >
> > Syria signed the 1990 Cairo Declaration (on Human Rights) so it
> > agreed to sharia law and "human rights" under Islam.
>
> And you actually believe that the Assad regime (not sure if it was Hafez
> or Bashir at that time) can be taken at its word?
Do not let the phrase "Human Rights" in the title of the document fool you; I do not believe he wants human rights in the same way that a nonMuslim country wants human rights.
My main point in mentioning the Cairo Declaration is that Syria has agreed to be a sharia law based country.
Whether we like it or not, as part of sharia law the leader can break all kinds of rules that are laid down for everyone else and be ruthless.
The Sunni-Shia murderous war going on in Syria right now , IMO, is part of it being a sharia based country. True, it is not sharia based like Saudi Arabia, but Sunnis and Shias claiming the other is an infidel and therefore, killing each other and dying with the intent of going to heaven in a violent jihad?
That culture is very sharia based IMO
> > IMHO, nonMuslims such as Hindus, Jews and Christians and Yazidis
> > fleeing that part of the world should get top priority and the
> > very frail, elderly, women and children should get priority. That is
> > IF the USA feels that immigrants from that part of the world should
> > be allowed in at all. The USA IMO has a right to decide who
> > comes into our country....we need to have an intelligent and self
> > preserving immigration policy. I feel that in sharia countries the
> > Jews, Christians and other religious minorities have been treated
> > terribly for years while the world looked away.
> >
>
> So you want the US to test people's religion? Well, first they came for
> the Muslims, but I wasn't a Muslim.
Also, some reports are saying that the migrants flooding into Europe are 80% young to middle aged men; not a huge percentage of 'widows and orphans'/
Demographically that is the group in ISIS and other violent Islamist groups.
Second, the USA to my knowledge has its own needs as a nation regarding immigrants. One year the country may need more doctors. One year the country may need more computer experts. Those kinds of decisions go into Visa decisions AFAIK all the time.
And it is my understanding that asking the religion of a potential immigrant is a common question. So, if the USA does accept more Middle East immigrants, I feel the oppressed Jews and Christians should get first priority--if the doors of immigration open up on a humanitarian basis. Those groups have been terribly oppressed in Muslim majority countries.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2015/04/07/has-the-world-looked-the-other-way-while-christians-are-killed/
It is sad, but in Muslim majority countries, history often shows us that the Jews are attacked first then the Christians, then when they are gone the Muslims attack each other.
topazgalaxy
Dec 9, 2015, 9:06:12 AM12/9/15
to
SNIP FOR LENGTH
>
> The male shooter in San Bernardino was born in Illinois, and was a good
> ol' American freedom-stick-lover.
The tone of your sentence sounds like you have contempt for Americans who treasure freedom. Do you?
------------------------------------------------------------------
You said--
Like Christian terrorists who shoot
places up.
26,000 Jihadists terror attacks around the world since 9/11.
Terror attacks by Christians or Jews around the world are miniscule.
No comparison. Terror attacks by devout Muslims are commanded by the Koran.
That is one of the key reasons they are so common.
Also, please tell me what YOU define as a "Christian terror " attack because I have a feeling we do not define the term the same way.
Also when a devout Muslim kills infidels he is obeying the founder of his faith.
The "Saudi Girl" he married may have radicalized him.
Possible.
She was
> not a refugee; she came in as a citizen's foreign bride.
She still passed all the Federal govt questions.
Do you feel that if someone is a known violent terrorist, they should just be let in to the USA due to marriage? That would clash with the 'no fly' list IMO>
Cause she is the "bride of Frankenstein" she gets a free pass?
>
> > The woman jihadist in California clearly was not screened properly,
> > or knew what to say when she came in.
>
> A spouse is not a refugee, and is subject to different rules. CIS checks
> if the marriage is real, vs. a sham to get a visa, but for obvious
> reasons doesn't impose religious tests.
>
> > And IMHO, comparing the Syrian refugees to the Jews fleeing WW II
> > (which some people do) is a very inaccurate comparison.
>
> It is not precisely the same, but close enough for me. Unless you
> consider Syrians to be less worthy as humans.
Your last sentence is ridiculous. That is your sentence not my opinion.
>
> The male shooter in San Bernardino was born in Illinois, and was a good
> ol' American freedom-stick-lover.
------------------------------------------------------------------
You said--
Like Christian terrorists who shoot
places up.
Terror attacks by Christians or Jews around the world are miniscule.
No comparison. Terror attacks by devout Muslims are commanded by the Koran.
That is one of the key reasons they are so common.
Also, please tell me what YOU define as a "Christian terror " attack because I have a feeling we do not define the term the same way.
Also when a devout Muslim kills infidels he is obeying the founder of his faith.
The "Saudi Girl" he married may have radicalized him.
She was
> not a refugee; she came in as a citizen's foreign bride.
Do you feel that if someone is a known violent terrorist, they should just be let in to the USA due to marriage? That would clash with the 'no fly' list IMO>
Cause she is the "bride of Frankenstein" she gets a free pass?
>
> > The woman jihadist in California clearly was not screened properly,
> > or knew what to say when she came in.
>
> A spouse is not a refugee, and is subject to different rules. CIS checks
> if the marriage is real, vs. a sham to get a visa, but for obvious
> reasons doesn't impose religious tests.
>
> > And IMHO, comparing the Syrian refugees to the Jews fleeing WW II
> > (which some people do) is a very inaccurate comparison.
>
> It is not precisely the same, but close enough for me. Unless you
> consider Syrians to be less worthy as humans.
Yisroel Markov
Dec 9, 2015, 11:11:30 AM12/9/15
to
On Wed, 9 Dec 2015 00:57:20 +0000 (UTC), Herman Rubin
<hru...@skew.stat.purdue.edu> said:
>On 2015-12-07, Yisroel Markov <ey.m...@MUNGiname.com> wrote:
>> On Sun, 6 Dec 2015 15:15:42 +0000 (UTC), topazgalaxy
>><topaz...@gmail.com> said:
>
>>>http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2015/12/american_jews_betrayed_by_their_leaders_again.html
>
>
>>>Maybe, indeed, it is time for American Jews to be concerned as to what
>is safest for us regarding immigration from sharia compliant countries.
>
>>>As Jews , do we really want to have neighbors who treat us like the
>Palestinians treat Israel?
>
>> As someone observed: "I'll be happy enough with admitting these
>> refugees if, as a part of their entrance interview, they have to read
>> and sign something like the following statement in their native
>> language: 'I understand that I am entering a pluralistic and tolerant
>> country. I realize that this country most people don't respect my
>> religion in the same way as I do, don't wear as much clothing as I may
>> consider proper, and do other things that I may dislike. I understand
>> that if I do anything violent or forcible about the behavior of my
> not
>> neighbors or my own family members that is^legal in this country, such
>> behavior will be grounds for immediate deportation.'"
>
>I believe you left out a word.
I see your point (and it's a good one), but adding the "not" would've
<hru...@skew.stat.purdue.edu> said:
>On 2015-12-07, Yisroel Markov <ey.m...@MUNGiname.com> wrote:
>> On Sun, 6 Dec 2015 15:15:42 +0000 (UTC), topazgalaxy
>><topaz...@gmail.com> said:
>
>>>http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2015/12/american_jews_betrayed_by_their_leaders_again.html
>
>
>>>Maybe, indeed, it is time for American Jews to be concerned as to what
>is safest for us regarding immigration from sharia compliant countries.
>
>>>As Jews , do we really want to have neighbors who treat us like the
>Palestinians treat Israel?
>
>> As someone observed: "I'll be happy enough with admitting these
>> refugees if, as a part of their entrance interview, they have to read
>> and sign something like the following statement in their native
>> language: 'I understand that I am entering a pluralistic and tolerant
>> country. I realize that this country most people don't respect my
>> religion in the same way as I do, don't wear as much clothing as I may
>> consider proper, and do other things that I may dislike. I understand
>> that if I do anything violent or forcible about the behavior of my
> not
>> neighbors or my own family members that is^legal in this country, such
>> behavior will be grounds for immediate deportation.'"
>
>I believe you left out a word.
made the declaration more complicated, as you'd have to add the
self-defense/imminent danger exception, which would detract from the
main idea.
Yisroel Markov
Dec 9, 2015, 1:55:06 PM12/9/15
to
On Wed, 9 Dec 2015 14:11:42 +0000 (UTC), topazgalaxy
<topaz...@gmail.com> said:
>SNIP FOR LENGTH
>
>
>>
>> The male shooter in San Bernardino was born in Illinois, and was a good
>> ol' American freedom-stick-lover.
>
>The tone of your sentence sounds like you have contempt for Americans who treasure freedom. Do you?
>------------------------------------------------------------------
Not all freedom, just a subset, but that obviously. Unfortunately,
<topaz...@gmail.com> said:
>SNIP FOR LENGTH
>
>
>>
>> The male shooter in San Bernardino was born in Illinois, and was a good
>> ol' American freedom-stick-lover.
>
>The tone of your sentence sounds like you have contempt for Americans who treasure freedom. Do you?
>------------------------------------------------------------------
it's very common for people to despise parts of the Bill of Rights
that they don't like, and also those who defend the Bill in its
entirety. Leftists are contemptuous of the Second Amendment and of
parts of the First; they and rightists alike despise aspects of the
Fourth, the Tenth, etc.
>You said--
>
> Like Christian terrorists who shoot
> places up.
>
>26,000 Jihadists terror attacks around the world since 9/11.
>Terror attacks by Christians or Jews around the world are miniscule.
>No comparison. Terror attacks by devout Muslims are commanded by the Koran.
>That is one of the key reasons they are so common.
when the President had mentioned the Crusades as the reason Christians
shouldn't regard their faith as more peaceful than Islam. The terms
are: For a period of one year, every time there is a Christian terror
attack, Graham would put $10 into an envelope for every victim; for
every Muslim terror attack victim, the other party would put $1 in an
envelope. At the end of the year, the person with the larger sum would
donate it to the charity of the other person's choice. So far, no one
has taken the wager; perhaps Fred will? Maybe if the odds are raised
to 100:1?
>Also, please tell me what YOU define as a "Christian terror " attack because I have a feeling we do not define the term the same way.
>Also when a devout Muslim kills infidels he is obeying the founder of his faith.
>
>
>
>
> The "Saudi Girl" he married may have radicalized him.
>
>Possible.
be radicalized, freely?
> She was
>> not a refugee; she came in as a citizen's foreign bride.
>
>She still passed all the Federal govt questions.
>Do you feel that if someone is a known violent terrorist, they should just be let in to the USA due to marriage? That would clash with the 'no fly' list IMO>
>Cause she is the "bride of Frankenstein" she gets a free pass?
>> > The woman jihadist in California clearly was not screened properly,
>> > or knew what to say when she came in.
>>
>> A spouse is not a refugee, and is subject to different rules. CIS checks
>> if the marriage is real, vs. a sham to get a visa, but for obvious
>> reasons doesn't impose religious tests.
>>
>> > And IMHO, comparing the Syrian refugees to the Jews fleeing WW II
>> > (which some people do) is a very inaccurate comparison.
sufficiently entrenched to be immune to the tightening of immigration
rules since the 1920s or the varying moral claims of importunate
foreigners: 61% of Americans, for example, opposed taking in Jewish
children in 1939, slightly more than oppose admitting Syrian refugees
now."
http://www.economist.com/news/united-states/21679163-current-spasm-nativism-far-unique-may-be-some-consolation-what-lies
>> It is not precisely the same, but close enough for me. Unless you
>> consider Syrians to be less worthy as humans.
>
>Your last sentence is ridiculous. That is your sentence not my opinion.
Fred Goldstein
Dec 9, 2015, 5:52:34 PM12/9/15
to
On 12/9/2015 9:11 AM, topazgalaxy wrote:
> SNIP FOR LENGTH
>
>
>>
>> The male shooter in San Bernardino was born in Illinois, and was a
>> good ol' American freedom-stick-lover.
>
> The tone of your sentence sounds like you have contempt for Americans
> who treasure freedom. Do you?
Hell no. But a military assault gun (freedom stick) is not real
> SNIP FOR LENGTH
>
>
>>
>> The male shooter in San Bernardino was born in Illinois, and was a
>> good ol' American freedom-stick-lover.
>
> The tone of your sentence sounds like you have contempt for Americans
> who treasure freedom. Do you?
freedom. Religious neutrality in all government actions, including
immigration, is freedom.
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> You said--
>
> Like Christian terrorists who shoot places up.
>
> 26,000 Jihadists terror attacks around the world since 9/11. Terror
> attacks by Christians or Jews around the world are miniscule. No
> comparison. Terror attacks by devout Muslims are commanded by the
> Koran. That is one of the key reasons they are so common. Also,
> please tell me what YOU define as a "Christian terror " attack
> because I have a feeling we do not define the term the same way. Also
> when a devout Muslim kills infidels he is obeying the founder of
> his faith.
>
>
>
>
> The "Saudi Girl" he married may have radicalized him.
>
> Possible.
>
>
> She was
>> not a refugee; she came in as a citizen's foreign bride.
>
> She still passed all the Federal govt questions. Do you feel that if
> someone is a known violent terrorist, they should just be let in to
> the USA due to marriage? That would clash with the 'no fly' list
> IMO> Cause she is the "bride of Frankenstein" she gets a free pass?
>
of Muslims aren't. Guilt by association is wrong. Most Jews weren't
userers either, but we were blamed...
>
Herman Rubin
Dec 9, 2015, 8:01:09 PM12/9/15
to
who have gone to fight for ISIS is more than 60, and this includes women.
There are quite a few who have been prevented from doing so. But the 60
would have excluded 99.999 percent. So 0.01 percent is a dangerous number.
When you go to a doctor with an unknown disease, you will be tested for
diseases which have serious effects on fewer than 0.01 percent. And it
is good police tactics to put their resources where the crimes are most
likely to occur, and to suspect those most likely to be criminals. So
racial profiling based on past observations is desirable.
Probably 1% of the Muslim men, and a smaller proportion of the women, fleeing
Syria and Iraq, are jihadists or very easily recruited as such. This is too
many, and they may be very difficult to identify. For Palestinaians, it is
likely to be more than 10 times that. Their religious training as children
is definitely responsible. On the other hand, many adults who have learned
that infidels will treat them much better, and respect them as individuals
according to their actions, are very desirable immigrants. But the refugee
hordes have so far not produced any such to my knowledge.
topazgalaxy
Dec 10, 2015, 9:18:03 AM12/10/15
to
On Wednesday, December 9, 2015 at 1:55:06 PM UTC-5, Yisroel Markov wrote:
> On Wed, 9 Dec 2015 14:11:42 +0000 (UTC), topazgalaxy
> <topaz...@gmail.com> said:
>
> >SNIP FOR LENGTH
> >
> >
> >>
> >> The male shooter in San Bernardino was born in Illinois, and was a good
> >> ol' American freedom-stick-lover.
> >
> >The tone of your sentence sounds like you have contempt for Americans who treasure freedom. Do you?
> >------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Not all freedom, just a subset, but that obviously. Unfortunately,
> it's very common for people to despise parts of the Bill of Rights
> that they don't like, and also those who defend the Bill in its
> entirety. Leftists are contemptuous of the Second Amendment and of
> parts of the First; they and rightists alike despise aspects of the
> Fourth, the Tenth, etc.
Interesting point.
> On Wed, 9 Dec 2015 14:11:42 +0000 (UTC), topazgalaxy
> <topaz...@gmail.com> said:
>
> >SNIP FOR LENGTH
> >
> >
> >>
> >> The male shooter in San Bernardino was born in Illinois, and was a good
> >> ol' American freedom-stick-lover.
> >
> >The tone of your sentence sounds like you have contempt for Americans who treasure freedom. Do you?
> >------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Not all freedom, just a subset, but that obviously. Unfortunately,
> it's very common for people to despise parts of the Bill of Rights
> that they don't like, and also those who defend the Bill in its
> entirety. Leftists are contemptuous of the Second Amendment and of
> parts of the First; they and rightists alike despise aspects of the
> Fourth, the Tenth, etc.
> >You said--
> >
> > Like Christian terrorists who shoot
> > places up.
> >
> >26,000 Jihadists terror attacks around the world since 9/11.
> >Terror attacks by Christians or Jews around the world are miniscule.
> >No comparison. Terror attacks by devout Muslims are commanded by the Koran.
> >That is one of the key reasons they are so common.
>
> A radio personality, Michael Graham, has offered a "Crusader wager"
> when the President had mentioned the Crusades as the reason Christians
> shouldn't regard their faith as more peaceful than Islam. The terms
> are: For a period of one year, every time there is a Christian terror
> attack, Graham would put $10 into an envelope for every victim; for
> every Muslim terror attack victim, the other party would put $1 in an
> envelope. At the end of the year, the person with the larger sum would
> donate it to the charity of the other person's choice. So far, no one
> has taken the wager; perhaps Fred will? Maybe if the odds are raised
> to 100:1?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/22/AR2005082201255.html
Shelly
Dec 14, 2015, 8:35:54 AM12/14/15
to
On 12/6/2015 2:44 PM, topazgalaxy wrote:
> Don't get me started on Obamacare.
> I never said I would have trouble FOR MYSELF getting a doctor's visit.
> My co pays for medicines have skyrocketed, my deductible has skyrocketed,
> and I met met many other people who have had the same issues.
> My copays for specialists have skyrocketed-- that used to be zero--
> and I have co pays for ultrasounds and CT scans which I never had before.
OTOH, I am on medicare but not on an "Advantage" plan. I pay for a
> Don't get me started on Obamacare.
> I never said I would have trouble FOR MYSELF getting a doctor's visit.
> My co pays for medicines have skyrocketed, my deductible has skyrocketed,
> and I met met many other people who have had the same issues.
> My copays for specialists have skyrocketed-- that used to be zero--
> and I have co pays for ultrasounds and CT scans which I never had before.
supplement, as I always have, where I have zero deductible and zero
co=pays. My premium has NOT skyrocketed. In fact, it has hardly changed
at all. My co=pays for medicines has gone up a little.
Are you, personally, on medicare?
--
Shelly
Shelly
Dec 14, 2015, 8:45:01 AM12/14/15
to
On 12/6/2015 2:44 PM, topazgalaxy wrote:
> Plus I have met many , many people with chronic diseases who due to high deductibles will not go to the doctor three or four times a year as medically directed because they do not want to pay the deductible, plus they refuse the blood work that the doctor orders because they are afraid that it will go into their deductible. So they are disobeying the doctors.
Duh! Do you even have ANY idea what the deductible is for Medicare part
B? It is something on the order of $100 a YEAR! Part A has NO
deductible. For Part B the co-pays are 20% of what Medicare allows
while Medicare pays 80%. What Medicare allows is just a fraction of what
the doctor sends to them as a bill.
Example: Doctor charge $150. Medicare allows $60. They pay $48 and the
patient's co-pay is $12, not $102.
Do you even know what is meant by Part A and Part B?
This year alone my wife has had rotator cuff surgery (out-patient) and a
hip replacement. She was also in a rehab facility for a month and has
had in-home physical therapy. Aside from our [quite stable] premiums
for the supplement plan, do you have any idea what that has cost us? ZERO.
--
Shelly
Shelly
Dec 14, 2015, 8:48:22 AM12/14/15
to
On 12/7/2015 8:38 PM, Fred Goldstein wrote:
> So you want the US to test people's religion? Well, first they came for
> the Muslims, but I wasn't a Muslim.
Why don't we make Muslim Americans wear a big yellow crescent sewn on
> So you want the US to test people's religion? Well, first they came for
> the Muslims, but I wasn't a Muslim.
the outside of all their clothing?
--
Shelly
Shelly
Dec 14, 2015, 9:00:28 AM12/14/15
to
On 12/8/2015 7:57 PM, Herman Rubin wrote:
> On 2015-12-07, Yisroel Markov <ey.m...@MUNGiname.com> wrote:
>> On Sun, 6 Dec 2015 15:15:42 +0000 (UTC), topazgalaxy
>> <topaz...@gmail.com> said:
>
>>> http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2015/12/american_jews_betrayed_by_their_leaders_again.html
>
>
>>> Maybe, indeed, it is time for American Jews to be concerned as to what
> is safest for us regarding immigration from sharia compliant countries.
>
>>> As Jews , do we really want to have neighbors who treat us like the
> Palestinians treat Israel?
>
>> As someone observed: "I'll be happy enough with admitting these
>> refugees if, as a part of their entrance interview, they have to read
>> and sign something like the following statement in their native
>> language: 'I understand that I am entering a pluralistic and tolerant
>> country. I realize that this country most people don't respect my
>> religion in the same way as I do, don't wear as much clothing as I may
>> consider proper, and do other things that I may dislike. I understand
>> that if I do anything violent or forcible about the behavior of my
> not
>> neighbors or my own family members that is^legal in this country, such
>> behavior will be grounds for immediate deportation.'"
>
> I believe you left out a word.
No, he didn't leave out a word. As I read it, it means that if this
> On 2015-12-07, Yisroel Markov <ey.m...@MUNGiname.com> wrote:
>> On Sun, 6 Dec 2015 15:15:42 +0000 (UTC), topazgalaxy
>> <topaz...@gmail.com> said:
>
>>> http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2015/12/american_jews_betrayed_by_their_leaders_again.html
>
>
>>> Maybe, indeed, it is time for American Jews to be concerned as to what
> is safest for us regarding immigration from sharia compliant countries.
>
>>> As Jews , do we really want to have neighbors who treat us like the
> Palestinians treat Israel?
>
>> As someone observed: "I'll be happy enough with admitting these
>> refugees if, as a part of their entrance interview, they have to read
>> and sign something like the following statement in their native
>> language: 'I understand that I am entering a pluralistic and tolerant
>> country. I realize that this country most people don't respect my
>> religion in the same way as I do, don't wear as much clothing as I may
>> consider proper, and do other things that I may dislike. I understand
>> that if I do anything violent or forcible about the behavior of my
> not
>> neighbors or my own family members that is^legal in this country, such
>> behavior will be grounds for immediate deportation.'"
>
> I believe you left out a word.
neighbors or family members do something that is LEGAL in this country
that he doesn't like, and he does something violent against them, then
it is grounds for deportation.
--
Shelly
Yisroel Markov
Dec 14, 2015, 9:53:44 AM12/14/15
to
is so true that if your company has employees over 65 and pays their
Medicare premiums, it is subject to the "marketplace fine" of $100 per
employee per day - because Medicare is not a qualifying insurance
plan.
--
malcolm...@btinternet.com
Dec 14, 2015, 10:12:42 AM12/14/15
to
[ Moderator's Comment: Me too HPG ]
us who happen to be non-Americans?
On Monday, December 14, 2015 at 1:45:01 PM UTC, shel...@thevillages.net wrote:
>
> Duh! Do you even have ANY idea what the deductible is for Medicare part
> B? It is something on the order of $100 a YEAR! Part A has NO
> deductible. For Part B the co-pays are 20% of what Medicare allows
> while Medicare pays 80%. What Medicare allows is just a fraction of what
> the doctor sends to them as a bill.
>
> Example: Doctor charge $150. Medicare allows $60. They pay $48 and the
> patient's co-pay is $12, not $102.
>
> Do you even know what is meant by Part A and Part B?
>
You realise that this exchange is totally baffling and meaningless to those of
>
> Duh! Do you even have ANY idea what the deductible is for Medicare part
> B? It is something on the order of $100 a YEAR! Part A has NO
> deductible. For Part B the co-pays are 20% of what Medicare allows
> while Medicare pays 80%. What Medicare allows is just a fraction of what
> the doctor sends to them as a bill.
>
> Example: Doctor charge $150. Medicare allows $60. They pay $48 and the
> patient's co-pay is $12, not $102.
>
> Do you even know what is meant by Part A and Part B?
>
us who happen to be non-Americans?
Shelly
Dec 14, 2015, 10:30:19 AM12/14/15
to
was responding to her.
--
Shelly
Herman Rubin
Dec 14, 2015, 1:03:33 PM12/14/15
to
On 2015-12-14, Shelly <shel...@thevillages.net> wrote:
> On 12/6/2015 2:44 PM, topazgalaxy wrote:
>> Plus I have met many , many people with chronic diseases who due to
high deductibles will not go to the doctor three or four times a year
as medically directed because they do not want to pay the deductible,
plus they refuse the blood work that the doctor orders because they are
afraid that it will go into their deductible. So they are disobeying
the doctors.
> Duh! Do you even have ANY idea what the deductible is for Medicare part
> B? It is something on the order of $100 a YEAR! Part A has NO
> deductible. For Part B the co-pays are 20% of what Medicare allows
> while Medicare pays 80%. What Medicare allows is just a fraction of what
> the doctor sends to them as a bill.
> Example: Doctor charge $150. Medicare allows $60. They pay $48 and the
> patient's co-pay is $12, not $102.
Not all doctors go along with that. The doctor probably lost money.
> On 12/6/2015 2:44 PM, topazgalaxy wrote:
>> Plus I have met many , many people with chronic diseases who due to
high deductibles will not go to the doctor three or four times a year
as medically directed because they do not want to pay the deductible,
plus they refuse the blood work that the doctor orders because they are
afraid that it will go into their deductible. So they are disobeying
the doctors.
> Duh! Do you even have ANY idea what the deductible is for Medicare part
> B? It is something on the order of $100 a YEAR! Part A has NO
> deductible. For Part B the co-pays are 20% of what Medicare allows
> while Medicare pays 80%. What Medicare allows is just a fraction of what
> the doctor sends to them as a bill.
> Example: Doctor charge $150. Medicare allows $60. They pay $48 and the
> patient's co-pay is $12, not $102.
If the doctor did not have higher payment patients, he would probably
go broke or drop out of practicing medicine. With our shortage of
physicians, this makes things worse. The money paid to the doctor
not only provides the doctor with income but also pays the salaries
of staff and the cost of government assigned record keeping. The
government overhead is low, because much of it is imposed on the
medcal profession.
> Do you even know what is meant by Part A and Part B?
> This year alone my wife has had rotator cuff surgery (out-patient) and a
> hip replacement. She was also in a rehab facility for a month and has
> had in-home physical therapy. Aside from our [quite stable] premiums
> for the supplement plan, do you have any idea what that has cost us? ZERO.
medical savings plans which would save me thousands each year,
but which are unavailable because of any part of medicare. As I
am on the Purdue plan, which is quite good, I am costing medicare
nothing on Part B, while my tax for medicare continues. And still
medicare is in financial danger. This savings plan did not exist
when I became 65; one can now decline Part A.
Giorgies E Kepipesiom
Dec 14, 2015, 2:26:31 PM12/14/15
to
On Monday, December 14, 2015 at 8:45:01 AM UTC-5, shel...@thevillages.net wrote:
>
> This year alone my wife has had rotator cuff surgery (out-patient) and a
> hip replacement. She was also in a rehab facility for a month and has
> had in-home physical therapy. Aside from our [quite stable] premiums
> for the supplement plan, do you have any idea what that has cost us? ZERO.
There is a medication that I have to take every day. A month's supply of this medicine used to cost me $5.00. Now, under the same insurance, following the new Obama system, the same drug costs me $40 per month. Thank God I can easily afford the $40. But what about all the poor people who cannot? Tha "affordable care act" has now made their care unaffordable.
>
> This year alone my wife has had rotator cuff surgery (out-patient) and a
> hip replacement. She was also in a rehab facility for a month and has
> had in-home physical therapy. Aside from our [quite stable] premiums
> for the supplement plan, do you have any idea what that has cost us? ZERO.
GEK
Shelly
Dec 14, 2015, 3:41:44 PM12/14/15
to
On 12/14/2015 1:09 PM, Herman Rubin wrote:
> On 2015-12-14, Shelly <shel...@thevillages.net> wrote:
>> On 12/6/2015 2:44 PM, topazgalaxy wrote:
>>> Plus I have met many , many people with chronic diseases who due to
> high deductibles will not go to the doctor three or four times a year
> as medically directed because they do not want to pay the deductible,
> plus they refuse the blood work that the doctor orders because they are
> afraid that it will go into their deductible. So they are disobeying
> the doctors.
>
>> Duh! Do you even have ANY idea what the deductible is for Medicare part
>> B? It is something on the order of $100 a YEAR! Part A has NO
>> deductible. For Part B the co-pays are 20% of what Medicare allows
>> while Medicare pays 80%. What Medicare allows is just a fraction of what
>> the doctor sends to them as a bill.
>
>> Example: Doctor charge $150. Medicare allows $60. They pay $48 and the
>> patient's co-pay is $12, not $102.
>
> Not all doctors go along with that. The doctor probably lost money.
For the doctor it is an either-or situation. If he accepts Medicare at
> On 2015-12-14, Shelly <shel...@thevillages.net> wrote:
>> On 12/6/2015 2:44 PM, topazgalaxy wrote:
>>> Plus I have met many , many people with chronic diseases who due to
> high deductibles will not go to the doctor three or four times a year
> as medically directed because they do not want to pay the deductible,
> plus they refuse the blood work that the doctor orders because they are
> afraid that it will go into their deductible. So they are disobeying
> the doctors.
>
>> Duh! Do you even have ANY idea what the deductible is for Medicare part
>> B? It is something on the order of $100 a YEAR! Part A has NO
>> deductible. For Part B the co-pays are 20% of what Medicare allows
>> while Medicare pays 80%. What Medicare allows is just a fraction of what
>> the doctor sends to them as a bill.
>
>> Example: Doctor charge $150. Medicare allows $60. They pay $48 and the
>> patient's co-pay is $12, not $102.
>
> Not all doctors go along with that. The doctor probably lost money.
all, then that is the law. So, he either complies, breaks the law, or
does not take any Medicare patients.
> If the doctor did not have higher payment patients, he would probably
> go broke or drop out of practicing medicine. With our shortage of
> physicians, this makes things worse. The money paid to the doctor
> not only provides the doctor with income but also pays the salaries
> of staff and the cost of government assigned record keeping. The
> government overhead is low, because much of it is imposed on the
> medcal profession.
--
Shelly
topazgalaxy
Dec 14, 2015, 6:11:32 PM12/14/15
to
But I used to have great insurance (from the patient's perspective) and now it is all gone. My plan no longer exists, period.
topazgalaxy
Dec 14, 2015, 6:12:09 PM12/14/15
to
I am not on Medicare.
It also has or will hurt the insurance marketplace for workers who depend on their bosses to buy the insurance.
I have heard of businesses who would give their workers extra money so the worker could go out on the federal govt health exchanges and buy whatever plan they wanted to buy. Well, for whatever reason, that is now illegal under Obamacare and the employer can be fined thousands of dollars a year for doing that.
Also, understandably, the bosses/employers want to save money so they are tending to buy insurance with very high co pays/deductibles, so yes, they meet the law but the worker sees their plan has changed to a high deductible/catastrophic plan rather than what they used to have.
Obamacare mandated that every policy has to have certain required features like mental health coverage, maternity care , etc etc so even women who are menopausal are paying for Obstetrical care. And in health care policies across the USA, people are directly or indirectly paying for pediatric dental care...even if that person does not have any children or never has children.
All those mandates may have helped poorer Americans who have kids that need dental care but it greatly increased the costs for everyone.
topazgalaxy
Dec 14, 2015, 6:12:27 PM12/14/15
to
When we hear the term "AFFORDABLE Care Act", we need to ask "Affordable for whom?"
Or "maybe it is affordable as long as you do not use the insurance."
cindys
Dec 14, 2015, 7:08:43 PM12/14/15
to
For once, I have to agree with Topaz. We are fortunate to have insurance through my husband's company. That said, a few years ago, before Obamacare, my older son needed surgery on his wrist. Our total out-of-pocket copay at that time was something like $100. This year, my younger son needed surgery on his wrist. Surprise, surprise! We now have a deductible (which I am told is quite low relative to what a lot of other people have), and our portion this time around is $2500 plus 20% of anything above that amount. And oh, by the way, that doesn't include the $35 copay every time we have yet another office visit related to the surgery (except for the one follow-up immediately following the surgery - that was included in the surgical fee). My husband's company does not offer any options that do not involve a deductible. And it's not as if the company pays 100% of the monthly premiums either.
My elderly mother recently switched her supplemental insurance. (Supplemental insurance is insurance that covers expenses that Medicare won't). Her premiums used to be zero. Then, they were suddenly $44/month. So, she found another zero premium supplemental insurance, but now her copays are $50. I can't imagine what she would need to pay if she had a hospital stay (which is not farfetched at her age).
And I predict things are only going to get worse, not better.
Best regards,
---Cindy S.
cindys
Dec 14, 2015, 7:11:03 PM12/14/15
to
On Monday, December 14, 2015 at 2:26:31 PM UTC-5, Giorgies E Kepipesiom wrote:
The copay for my son's medicine used to be $10/month. In January of last year, it suddenly jumped to $60/month, and it's a generic.
Best regards,
---Cindy S.
topazgalaxy
Dec 14, 2015, 7:19:42 PM12/14/15
to
On Monday, December 14, 2015 at 8:45:01 AM UTC-5, shel...@thevillages.net wrote:
> On 12/6/2015 2:44 PM, topazgalaxy wrote:
> > Plus I have met many , many people with chronic diseases who due to high deductibles will not go to the doctor three or four times a year as medically directed because they do not want to pay the deductible, plus they refuse the blood work that the doctor orders because they are afraid that it will go into their deductible. So they are disobeying the doctors.
>
> Duh!
Are you watching too many Homer Simpson episodes.?
> > Plus I have met many , many people with chronic diseases who due to high deductibles will not go to the doctor three or four times a year as medically directed because they do not want to pay the deductible, plus they refuse the blood work that the doctor orders because they are afraid that it will go into their deductible. So they are disobeying the doctors.
>
> Duh!
Do you even have ANY idea what the deductible is for Medicare part
> B? It is something on the order of $100 a YEAR! Part A has NO
> deductible. For Part B the co-pays are 20% of what Medicare allows
> while Medicare pays 80%. What Medicare allows is just a fraction of what
> the doctor sends to them as a bill.
>
> Example: Doctor charge $150. Medicare allows $60. They pay $48 and the
> patient's co-pay is $12, not $102.
>
> Do you even know what is meant by Part A and Part B?
>
> This year alone my wife has had rotator cuff surgery (out-patient) and a
> hip replacement. She was also in a rehab facility for a month and has
> had in-home physical therapy. Aside from our [quite stable] premiums
> for the supplement plan, do you have any idea what that has cost us? ZERO.
>
> --
> Shelly
Check out some of the stories on-line of patients who have to pay for their own insurance, as self employed persons, or get insurance through an employer.
See how many have a 100 dollar a year deductible currently.
My comments on my own insurance had nothing to do with Medicare.
There are plenty of people not on Medicaid or Medicare who have chronic illnesses and due to office co pays and deductibles, they are intentionally reducing their doctor visits and lab work. Their insurance is in the private sector.
I even spoke with a woman who had an 80 dollar office co pay to see a specialist. That was with health insurance that her boss paid for.
Beach Runner
Dec 14, 2015, 8:02:58 PM12/14/15
to
Socialized medicine is a good thing. What is missing is that they should be able to negotiate with big pharma for more reasonable drug prices. I know a lot
about big pharma and the FDA, and it's abusive. The members of the FDA are almost all closely alighned financially with Big Pharma.
Medicaid is another thing. While Medicare has been carefully controlled,
Medicaid is full of corrupt billing and fraud. It needs to be cleaned up.
They don't pay squat so the providers make up all kinds of charges and milk
medicaid.
As far as Insurance Companies, I was a Computer Systems Manager for a Major Health Insurer. They are all the same. When you see a doctor you are paying for a huge overhead of a major corporations, including CEO, managers, engineers,
computers, toilet paper, real estate, advertising, analysts, more computers and data bases, programmers, at one time me, their technical support, which for over a decade was me as a part of a huge computer company.
The affordable care act is not socialized medicine. It has some great provisions, specifically people with per-existing conditions get coverage.
When I worked for Health Net, the biggest data base we had, one of the largest in the nation was for all previous health care, for the purpose of denying future claims.
Still, I support a single payer non profit system, basically Medicare for all,
but with negotiations for drug prices.
The FDA should also do it's own research, not have companies do their own studies and cherry pick and submit the ones they like. That's why only expensive drugs get approved by the FDA, hopefully ones that cure nothing but you have to take for the rest of your life.
Psychiatric drugs are best, they create a patient for life in an unholy alliance between a psychiatrist and a drug company. And, they have no scientific basis for their toxic chemicals. No blood tests. The whole concept of depression or ADHD being a result of a chemical imbalance was a marketting ploy invented by Eli Lilly and had absolutely no scientific proof, it was just a
good sounding theory.
And, while psychiatrists used to get money for prescribing drugs, now they get speaking engagements, trips and all sorts of perks to prescribe the latest
drugs.
And get this, SSRI vastly increase violence. Suicides and homicides go way up.
Almost all the mass killers were on SSRIs. Non biased research show them no more effective than placebos but are huge profit centers.
Harry Weiss
Dec 14, 2015, 8:28:37 PM12/14/15
to
Government plan (equivekabt to regular Medicare) there is no legitimate
floor to start with.
'
A clone of Medicare with plain care and choice of advantage like plans as
well and private supplementals would be a lot better,
--
Harry J. Weiss
hjw...@panix.com
Shelly
Dec 14, 2015, 10:17:52 PM12/14/15
to
On 12/14/2015 7:25 PM, topazgalaxy wrote:
> My comments on my own insurance had nothing to do with Medicare.
Of course not. After all, you are only 21 so why would you qualify? :-)
> My comments on my own insurance had nothing to do with Medicare.
--
Shelly
Shelly
Dec 15, 2015, 12:17:39 AM12/15/15
to
On 12/14/2015 7:14 PM, cindys wrote:
> On Monday, December 14, 2015 at 6:12:27 PM UTC-5, topazgalaxy wrote:
>> On Monday, December 14, 2015 at 2:26:31 PM UTC-5, Giorgies E Kepipesiom wrote:
>>> On Monday, December 14, 2015 at 8:45:01 AM UTC-5, shel...@thevillages.net wrote:
>>>>
>>>> This year alone my wife has had rotator cuff surgery (out-patient) and a
>>>> hip replacement. She was also in a rehab facility for a month and has
>>>> had in-home physical therapy. Aside from our [quite stable] premiums
>>>> for the supplement plan, do you have any idea what that has cost us? ZERO.
>>>
>>> There is a medication that I have to take every day. A month's supply of this medicine used to cost me $5.00. Now, under the same insurance, following the new Obama system, the same drug costs me $40 per month. Thank God I can easily afford the $40. But what about all the poor people who cannot? Tha "affordable care act" has now made their care unaffordable.
>>>
>>> GEK
>>
>> Excellent point.
>> When we hear the term "AFFORDABLE Care Act", we need to ask "Affordable for whom?"
>> Or "maybe it is affordable as long as you do not use the insurance."
> -------------
> For once, I have to agree with Topaz. We are fortunate to have insurance through my husband's company. That said, a few years ago, before Obamacare, my older son needed surgery on his wrist. Our total out-of-pocket copay at that time was something like $100. This year, my younger son needed surgery on his wrist. Surprise, surprise! We now have a deductible (which I am told is quite low relative to what a lot of other people have), and our portion this time around is $2500 plus 20% of anything above that amount. And oh, by the way, that doesn't include the $35 copay every time we have yet another office visit related to the surgery (except for the one follow-up immediately following the surgery - that was included in the surgical fee). My husband's company does not offer any options that do not involve a deductible. And it's not as if the company pays 100% of the monthly premiums either.
I don't know anything about private plans. My elder son and my daughter
> On Monday, December 14, 2015 at 6:12:27 PM UTC-5, topazgalaxy wrote:
>> On Monday, December 14, 2015 at 2:26:31 PM UTC-5, Giorgies E Kepipesiom wrote:
>>> On Monday, December 14, 2015 at 8:45:01 AM UTC-5, shel...@thevillages.net wrote:
>>>>
>>>> This year alone my wife has had rotator cuff surgery (out-patient) and a
>>>> hip replacement. She was also in a rehab facility for a month and has
>>>> had in-home physical therapy. Aside from our [quite stable] premiums
>>>> for the supplement plan, do you have any idea what that has cost us? ZERO.
>>>
>>> There is a medication that I have to take every day. A month's supply of this medicine used to cost me $5.00. Now, under the same insurance, following the new Obama system, the same drug costs me $40 per month. Thank God I can easily afford the $40. But what about all the poor people who cannot? Tha "affordable care act" has now made their care unaffordable.
>>>
>>> GEK
>>
>> Excellent point.
>> When we hear the term "AFFORDABLE Care Act", we need to ask "Affordable for whom?"
>> Or "maybe it is affordable as long as you do not use the insurance."
> -------------
> For once, I have to agree with Topaz. We are fortunate to have insurance through my husband's company. That said, a few years ago, before Obamacare, my older son needed surgery on his wrist. Our total out-of-pocket copay at that time was something like $100. This year, my younger son needed surgery on his wrist. Surprise, surprise! We now have a deductible (which I am told is quite low relative to what a lot of other people have), and our portion this time around is $2500 plus 20% of anything above that amount. And oh, by the way, that doesn't include the $35 copay every time we have yet another office visit related to the surgery (except for the one follow-up immediately following the surgery - that was included in the surgical fee). My husband's company does not offer any options that do not involve a deductible. And it's not as if the company pays 100% of the monthly premiums either.
are covered under the VA and my younger son has "Romneycare" in
Massachusetts.
> My elderly mother recently switched her supplemental insurance. (Supplemental insurance is insurance that covers expenses that Medicare won't). Her premiums used to be zero. Then, they were suddenly $44/month. So, she found another zero premium supplemental insurance, but now her copays are $50. I can't imagine what she would need to pay if she had a hospital stay (which is not farfetched at her age).
Medicare. So the cost of that hospital stay would be zero.
By supplemental do you mean expenses that are not covered at all by
medicare? What would those be? I have supplements coverage on my
Medicare and it covers all the co-pays and the deductible for anything
that medicare covers at the 80%. The premiums for that, however, are not
zero. For me it is more like $150 a month. I chose that option because
I hate HMOs and I wanted to go to whatever doctor I chose with no
referral and no "in/out of network" worries. Yes, it is more expensive
than an advantage plan -- unless you use doctors and ERs a lot. But who
ever said that freedom [of choice] is free?
> And I predict things are only going to get worse, not better.
> Best regards,
> ---Cindy S.
>
--
Shelly
topazgalaxy
Dec 15, 2015, 12:18:33 AM12/15/15
to
There are individual stories all over the internet, for those who wish to browse, of people whose insurance went from good to bad, or reasonable to not so reasonable. And many of the insurance companies are losing money too which is not good for their customers because the pressure will be on for them to make changes to increase their bottom line.
In a few states the premiums are going up double digits.
?I believe that roughly half the health care co-ops have collapsed?
Fred Goldstein
Dec 15, 2015, 12:27:41 PM12/15/15
to
On 12/14/2015 6:17 PM, topazgalaxy wrote:
...
more than the past decade. I bought "small business" insurance for my
one-man shop before and after Romneycare came in. I'm still on a related
plan (though as part of a 3-family small business group now). Obamacare
didn't change it much, just led to some small rebates due to the HMO's
not hitting the target Medical Loss Ratio. Plus no copay for the annual
checkup and other minor tweaks. Rate increases have been a bit slower
than before Obamacare.
Had I not operated a "small business", I would have been screwed. The
pre-Romneycare "individual" "marketplace" (scare quotes required) was a
horror show, with high prices for fake plans that disqualified
everything they could because it was their job to determine that
everything was a "pre-existing condition" and thus excluded. Insurance
existed for the shareholders, not the sake of public health.
Of course that's not using the Obamacare exchange. The exchanges
function, in effect, as a high-risk pool for those without better
alternatives. Old high-risk pools were pathetic -- pay a fortune for
nothing, basically "you sick good-for-nothing moochers". Exchange plans
here are decent, just not quite as good as the small business plans we
can get.
I am not on Medicare. It
> also has or will hurt the insurance marketplace for workers who
> depend on their bosses to buy the insurance. I have heard of
> businesses who would give their workers extra money so the worker
> could go out on the federal govt health exchanges and buy whatever
> plan they wanted to buy. Well, for whatever reason, that is now
> illegal under Obamacare and the employer can be fined thousands of
> dollars a year for doing that.
Sure, because employers with >50 employees are required to offer group
plans. And group plans tend to cost less than individual coverage. So
Obamacare uses them. I'd rather have seen single-payer/modified
single-provider (e.g., the NHS) overall, but if you insist on using
private insurance companies top to bottom for working people, then this
is what you get.
Also, understandably, the
> bosses/employers want to save money so they are tending to buy
> insurance with very high co pays/deductibles, so yes, they meet the
> law but the worker sees their plan has changed to a high
> deductible/catastrophic plan rather than what they used to have.
>
Because rates are rising, not because of Obamacare but in spite of its
tepid cost-containment efforts.
> Obamacare mandated that every policy has to have certain required
> features like mental health coverage, maternity care , etc etc so
> even women who are menopausal are paying for Obstetrical care. And
> in health care policies across the USA, people are directly or
> indirectly paying for pediatric dental care...even if that person
> does not have any children or never has children.
>
Do you understand how insurance works? Never mind.
> All those mandates may have helped poorer Americans who have kids
> that need dental care but it greatly increased the costs for
> everyone.
Uh, no, it didn't. But you just answered my previous question.
...
>
> Obamacare has really damaged the insurance market place for the
> self employed who buy their own insurance.
That's flat-out preposterous. I have been technically self-employed for
> Obamacare has really damaged the insurance market place for the
> self employed who buy their own insurance.
more than the past decade. I bought "small business" insurance for my
one-man shop before and after Romneycare came in. I'm still on a related
plan (though as part of a 3-family small business group now). Obamacare
didn't change it much, just led to some small rebates due to the HMO's
not hitting the target Medical Loss Ratio. Plus no copay for the annual
checkup and other minor tweaks. Rate increases have been a bit slower
than before Obamacare.
Had I not operated a "small business", I would have been screwed. The
pre-Romneycare "individual" "marketplace" (scare quotes required) was a
horror show, with high prices for fake plans that disqualified
everything they could because it was their job to determine that
everything was a "pre-existing condition" and thus excluded. Insurance
existed for the shareholders, not the sake of public health.
Of course that's not using the Obamacare exchange. The exchanges
function, in effect, as a high-risk pool for those without better
alternatives. Old high-risk pools were pathetic -- pay a fortune for
nothing, basically "you sick good-for-nothing moochers". Exchange plans
here are decent, just not quite as good as the small business plans we
can get.
I am not on Medicare. It
> also has or will hurt the insurance marketplace for workers who
> depend on their bosses to buy the insurance. I have heard of
> businesses who would give their workers extra money so the worker
> could go out on the federal govt health exchanges and buy whatever
> plan they wanted to buy. Well, for whatever reason, that is now
> illegal under Obamacare and the employer can be fined thousands of
> dollars a year for doing that.
plans. And group plans tend to cost less than individual coverage. So
Obamacare uses them. I'd rather have seen single-payer/modified
single-provider (e.g., the NHS) overall, but if you insist on using
private insurance companies top to bottom for working people, then this
is what you get.
Also, understandably, the
> bosses/employers want to save money so they are tending to buy
> insurance with very high co pays/deductibles, so yes, they meet the
> law but the worker sees their plan has changed to a high
> deductible/catastrophic plan rather than what they used to have.
>
tepid cost-containment efforts.
> Obamacare mandated that every policy has to have certain required
> features like mental health coverage, maternity care , etc etc so
> even women who are menopausal are paying for Obstetrical care. And
> in health care policies across the USA, people are directly or
> indirectly paying for pediatric dental care...even if that person
> does not have any children or never has children.
>
> All those mandates may have helped poorer Americans who have kids
> that need dental care but it greatly increased the costs for
> everyone.
Fred Goldstein
Dec 15, 2015, 12:27:53 PM12/15/15
to
topazgalaxy
Dec 15, 2015, 10:49:01 PM12/15/15
to
It was not some kind of indefinite ban out of context.
I don't like Trump anyway and I will not vote for him; frankly I question his emotional stability. Can you imagine him as Commander in Chief making decisions during a war? Oy vey
But regarding the idea of Muslim Americans wearing a big yellow crescent sewn on the clothes, of course that is preposterous. And you know who did that to the Jews way before Hitler? At least one of the Caliphs.
topazgalaxy
Dec 15, 2015, 10:52:03 PM12/15/15
to
Look, all you have to do is 'google' on the internet the stories of self employed healthy people who had great insurance that now is gone; various articles estimate that 5 to 6 million people in that category lost their health insurance.
There used to be a category of insurance called "self employed -Group of One".
It is now totally gone.
Quite a few health co-ops did not survive the changes in the new health care law; AFAIK quite a few self employed self insured people joined those co-ops like Health Republic of NY and that co-op just folded. 200,000 New Yorkers just said good by to their Health Republic plan
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2015/11/29/health-republic-latest-health-care-co-op-go-under/76444190/
Over 300,000 people in Texas on individual plans will have to switch because their PPO onBlue Cross is now gone.
When the people then are told to just switch to an HMO, well, that can change what doctor or hospital is covered. HMO's often have alot more restrictions in choice.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/2015/11/19/unitedhealth-group-earnings-downgrade-obamacare-affordable-care-act/76040322/
Here is an article on what is happening for cancer patients in Texas as
of 2016; for those who do not know, M> D> Anderson is a top notch cancer hospital like Sloan Kettering in N Y City.
http://www.houstonchronicle.com/business/medical/article/Loss-of-insurance-plans-could-devastate-cancer-6603232.php
People with cancer can be expensive of course for them to stay alive and of course they want to go to a top hospital if need be. As the insurances lose money, they will narrow the list of doctors and hospitals that they cover.
Obamacare is precipitating all of these patient-doctor and patient-hospital relationships to financially collapse.
http://www.houstonchronicle.com/business/medical/article/Insurers-limit-plan-types-for-2016-ACA-exchange-6594447.php
Here is an older article
http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702304527504579171710423780446
And the President said 25 times "We make this promise to the American people. If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor. Period. If you like your insurance you can keep your insurance......"
All these links, and my comments and the numbers...it is just the tip of the iceburg.
(PeteCresswell)
Dec 16, 2015, 12:18:35 AM12/16/15
to
Per topazgalaxy:
Daughter-and-her-husband-the-mushroom-farmers.
Before Obamacare, they were prevailing on veterinarians (they also raise
dogs and keep horses) for what medical care they got.
Now, with Obamacare, they can afford health insurance and the quality of
their medical care has increased substantially.
--
Pete Cresswell
>Obamacare has really damaged the insurance market place for the self employed who buy their own insurance.
That would be a hard sell to my #1
Daughter-and-her-husband-the-mushroom-farmers.
Before Obamacare, they were prevailing on veterinarians (they also raise
dogs and keep horses) for what medical care they got.
Now, with Obamacare, they can afford health insurance and the quality of
their medical care has increased substantially.
--
Pete Cresswell
Shelly
Dec 16, 2015, 9:02:29 AM12/16/15
to
Or was it? Forcing Mulims to register as Muslims is but one step away
from yellow crescents. It did not start with forcing Jews to wear a
yellow mogen david on their clothes, you know. It was a series of steps.
Anyway, it is clearcut, no need for interpretation, violation of
constitution. IOW, it was just a sound-bite for Clump.
--
Shelly
Shelly
Dec 16, 2015, 9:06:40 AM12/16/15
to
On 12/15/2015 10:57 PM, topazgalaxy wrote:
> You and I are going to go around and around with this.
> Look, all you have to do is 'google' on the internet the stories of self employed healthy people who had great insurance that now is gone; various articles estimate that 5 to 6 million people in that category lost their health insurance.
> There used to be a category of insurance called "self employed -Group of One".
> It is now totally gone.
Why does he have to google anything when he has first hand experience?
> You and I are going to go around and around with this.
> Look, all you have to do is 'google' on the internet the stories of self employed healthy people who had great insurance that now is gone; various articles estimate that 5 to 6 million people in that category lost their health insurance.
> There used to be a category of insurance called "self employed -Group of One".
> It is now totally gone.
Suppose someone listed a series of links stating that Jews have horns.
You are a Jew and you know that you don't have horns. Who are you going
to believe -- the internet links or your own personal experience?
--
Shelly
Shelly
Dec 16, 2015, 9:09:02 AM12/16/15
to
trumping internet links which say the opposite.
--
Shelly
malcolm...@btinternet.com
Dec 16, 2015, 10:35:26 AM12/16/15
to
On Wednesday, December 16, 2015 at 2:06:40 PM UTC, shel...@thevillages.net wrote:
>
> Suppose someone listed a series of links stating that Jews have horns.
> You are a Jew and you know that you don't have horns. Who are you going
> to believe -- the internet links or your own personal experience?
>
If you're a Jew and you don't have horns, then that's one example of a hornless
>
> Suppose someone listed a series of links stating that Jews have horns.
> You are a Jew and you know that you don't have horns. Who are you going
> to believe -- the internet links or your own personal experience?
>
Jew. But no more than that. It doesn't necessarily mean that the generality
of Jews don't have horns.
(Actually it's not an anti-Semitic belief at all, its based on a (probable) mistranslation
of Exodus, where Moses returns from Mt Sinai, with "kerenim" on his head. It
almost certainly means "rays of light", but the word also means "horn").
Yisroel Markov
Dec 16, 2015, 2:18:22 PM12/16/15
to
which had made a lot of changes, and not all at once. (Some, like the
Cadillac tax, are still pending.) As is usual in such cases, there are
winners and losers; moreover, their distribution is not the same
across states, professional groups, etc.
--
Yisroel "Godwrestler Warriorson" Markov - Boston, MA Member
www.reason.com -- for a sober analysis of the world DNRC
--------------------------------------------------------------------
"Judge, and be prepared to be judged" -- Ayn Rand
Shelly
Dec 16, 2015, 5:57:56 PM12/16/15
to
On 12/16/2015 10:41 AM, malcolm...@btinternet.com wrote:
> On Wednesday, December 16, 2015 at 2:06:40 PM UTC, shel...@thevillages.net wrote:
>>
>> Suppose someone listed a series of links stating that Jews have horns.
>> You are a Jew and you know that you don't have horns. Who are you going
>> to believe -- the internet links or your own personal experience?
>>
> If you're a Jew and you don't have horns, then that's one example of a hornless
> Jew. But no more than that. It doesn't necessarily mean that the generality
> of Jews don't have horns.
...but when you grow up in an area where almost everyone is Jewish and
> On Wednesday, December 16, 2015 at 2:06:40 PM UTC, shel...@thevillages.net wrote:
>>
>> Suppose someone listed a series of links stating that Jews have horns.
>> You are a Jew and you know that you don't have horns. Who are you going
>> to believe -- the internet links or your own personal experience?
>>
> If you're a Jew and you don't have horns, then that's one example of a hornless
> Jew. But no more than that. It doesn't necessarily mean that the generality
> of Jews don't have horns.
NONE has horns, you can make that statement the Jews do not have horns
with an extremely, extremely, high probability of being correct. In any
event, my example is that personal experience trumps second hand
accounts written by people you don't know.
> (Actually it's not an anti-Semitic belief at all, its based on a (probable) mistranslation
> of Exodus, where Moses returns from Mt Sinai, with "kerenim" on his head. It
> almost certainly means "rays of light", but the word also means "horn").
--
Shelly
topazgalaxy
Dec 16, 2015, 8:26:53 PM12/16/15
to
And I have met a number of people who were hurt...first hand witnessing. Direct conversations.
Fred Goldstein
Dec 16, 2015, 8:30:53 PM12/16/15
to
On 12/15/2015 10:57 PM, topazgalaxy wrote:
> On Tuesday, December 15, 2015 at 12:27:41 PM UTC-5, Fred Goldstein
>>
>>
>> Do you understand how insurance works? Never mind.
>>
>>> All those mandates may have helped poorer Americans who have
>>> kids that need dental care but it greatly increased the costs
>>> for everyone.
>>
>> Uh, no, it didn't. But you just answered my previous question.
>
> You and I are going to go around and around with this.
Or this will be my last post on the subject in this hijacked thread.
>>
>>> All those mandates may have helped poorer Americans who have
>>> kids that need dental care but it greatly increased the costs
>>> for everyone.
>>
>> Uh, no, it didn't. But you just answered my previous question.
>
> You and I are going to go around and around with this.
Look, all you
> have to do is 'google' on the internet the stories of self employed
> healthy people who had great insurance that now is gone; various
> articles estimate that 5 to 6 million people in that category lost
> their health insurance.
cancelled, like "mini-meds" and those with huge gaps in benefits. Honest
plans survived.
There used to be a category of insurance
> called "self employed -Group of One". It is now totally gone.
group three instead of one didn't change that. But "group of one" is not
so important any more, because the old detestable fraudulent
"individual" policy is gone, replaced by the exchanges, which offer real
insurance to individuals, employed or not, quantity one. It may cost a
bit more because it is no longer tied to being employable/working (and
thus implicitly leaving out the least healthy), but it's not a drastic
change. The exchange is a good backstop.
> Quite a few health co-ops did not survive the changes in the new
> health care law; AFAIK quite a few self employed self insured
> people joined those co-ops like Health Republic of NY and that co-op
> just folded. 200,000 New Yorkers just said good by to their Health
> Republic plan
>
> http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2015/11/29/health-republic-latest-health-care-co-op-go-under/76444190/
>
Obamacare, the Risk Corridor, was removed from the law last year in an
act of sabotage by Senator Marco Rubio. Risk Corridors are another key
part of how insurance works that few people outside the business
understand. They are the heart however of the German system, which uses
private insurers but works much better than the American system --
Obamacare is a sort of halfway copy. Risk corridors transfer money
between insurance pools based upon the relative risk of their served
populations. So the insurance company /HMO doesn't have an incentive to
become a "healthy members only" organization; if it serves the neediest,
it's covered. Rubio cynically called it a "handout" to coops and
insurance companies who played by the rules and got it banned. So of
course there are casualties of his sabotage.
...
>
> All these links, and my comments and the numbers...it is just the
> tip of the iceburg.
Of course it's an imperfect system. It was a political compromise. What
> All these links, and my comments and the numbers...it is just the
> tip of the iceburg.
works best is socialized medicine, British style.
Harry Weiss
Dec 17, 2015, 12:54:16 AM12/17/15
to
deductiable and co pay plans to encourage people to leave and get
Obamacare, or maybe even qualify for Medicaid under the new rules,
Those that are no on Medicaid are the big beneficiaries, Others are
paying more for less,
topazgalaxy
Dec 17, 2015, 9:28:42 AM12/17/15
to
On Wednesday, December 16, 2015 at 8:30:53 PM UTC-5, Fred Goldstein wrote:
> On 12/15/2015 10:57 PM, topazgalaxy wrote:
> > On Tuesday, December 15, 2015 at 12:27:41 PM UTC-5, Fred Goldstein
>
> >>
> >> Do you understand how insurance works? Never mind.
> >>
> >>> All those mandates may have helped poorer Americans who have
> >>> kids that need dental care but it greatly increased the costs
> >>> for everyone.
> >>
> >> Uh, no, it didn't. But you just answered my previous question.
> >
> > You and I are going to go around and around with this.
>
> Or this will be my last post on the subject in this hijacked thread.
OK
> On 12/15/2015 10:57 PM, topazgalaxy wrote:
> > On Tuesday, December 15, 2015 at 12:27:41 PM UTC-5, Fred Goldstein
>
> >>
> >> Do you understand how insurance works? Never mind.
> >>
> >>> All those mandates may have helped poorer Americans who have
> >>> kids that need dental care but it greatly increased the costs
> >>> for everyone.
> >>
> >> Uh, no, it didn't. But you just answered my previous question.
> >
> > You and I are going to go around and around with this.
>
> Or this will be my last post on the subject in this hijacked thread.
> Look, all you
> > have to do is 'google' on the internet the stories of self employed
> > healthy people who had great insurance that now is gone; various
> > articles estimate that 5 to 6 million people in that category lost
> > their health insurance.
>
> Your "great insurance" is a Fox News myth. Defective plans were
> cancelled, like "mini-meds" and those with huge gaps in benefits. Honest
> plans survived.
We do not need big government telling individual patients "you really need this pediatric dental plan even though you have no children and you are 55 years old". Or "you really need this Obstetical care part of health care even though you are menopausal". It is idiotic.
"Honest plans??" Ridiculous.
The patient should be the one to judge whether they liked their old plan or not and get to keep it -- as the POTUS promised 25 times. The patient should be the judge of whether or not the plan was "defective" for them. Not the Democrats and a bunch of beurocrats.
> There used to be a category of insurance
> > called "self employed -Group of One". It is now totally gone.
>
> I could still have it here; that I joined a partnership that made my
> group three instead of one didn't change that. But "group of one" is not
> so important any more, because the old detestable fraudulent
> "individual" policy is gone, replaced by the exchanges,
The individual policy worked for millions of people -- it was not fraudulent.
What was fraudulent was the Presidential promise that he never kept.
Besides, the ease of identity theft on the exchanges was well documented; how can any member of congress tell people to sign upon a web site that is so poorly designed it had almost zilch security of one's private inforamtion?
which offer real
> insurance to individuals, employed or not, quantity one. It may cost a
> bit more because it is no longer tied to being employable/working (and
> thus implicitly leaving out the least healthy), but it's not a drastic
> change. The exchange is a good backstop.
>
> > Quite a few health co-ops did not survive the changes in the new
> > health care law; AFAIK quite a few self employed self insured
> > people joined those co-ops like Health Republic of NY and that co-op
> > just folded. 200,000 New Yorkers just said good by to their Health
> > Republic plan
> >
> > http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2015/11/29/health-republic-latest-health-care-co-op-go-under/76444190/
> >
>
> And why did that happen? Because one of the major features of
> Obamacare, the Risk Corridor, was removed from the law last year in an
> act of sabotage by Senator Marco Rubio. Risk Corridors are another key
> part of how insurance works that few people outside the business
> understand.
They are the heart however of the German system, which uses
> private insurers but works much better than the American system --
> Obamacare is a sort of halfway copy. Risk corridors transfer money
> between insurance pools based upon the relative risk of their served
> populations. So the insurance company /HMO doesn't have an incentive to
> become a "healthy members only" organization; if it serves the neediest,
> it's covered. Rubio cynically called it a "handout" to coops and
> insurance companies who played by the rules and got it banned. So of
> course there are casualties of his sabotage.
> ...
> >
> > All these links, and my comments and the numbers...it is just the
> > tip of the iceburg.
>
> Of course it's an imperfect system. It was a political compromise. What
> works best is socialized medicine, British style.
Shelly
Dec 17, 2015, 10:08:07 AM12/17/15
to
On 12/17/2015 9:34 AM, topazgalaxy wrote:
> We do not need big government telling individual patients "you really need this pediatric dental plan even though you have no children and you are 55 years old". Or "you really need this Obstetical care part of health care even though you are menopausal". It is idiotic.
> "Honest plans??" Ridiculous.
Ok, let me say I agree with you and take it one step further. I live in
> We do not need big government telling individual patients "you really need this pediatric dental plan even though you have no children and you are 55 years old". Or "you really need this Obstetical care part of health care even though you are menopausal". It is idiotic.
> "Honest plans??" Ridiculous.
a community where there are no school age children and I don't have any.
If I were to father a child, he could not live with me unless I moved to
another community. I pay my taxes to the county each year and the lion's
share goes for schools. Why should I have to pay taxes for schools?
Idiotic. Ridiculous.
Insurance works the same way. You spread the cost of individual expenses
to cover the entire set, thereby avoiding prohibitive costs for one group.
--
Shelly
malcolm...@btinternet.com
Dec 17, 2015, 10:37:33 AM12/17/15
to
On Wednesday, December 16, 2015 at 10:57:56 PM UTC, shel...@thevillages.net wrote:
> On 12/16/2015 10:41 AM, malcolm...@btinternet.com wrote:
> > On Wednesday, December 16, 2015 at 2:06:40 PM UTC, shel...@thevillages.net wrote:
> >>
> >> Suppose someone listed a series of links stating that Jews have horns.
> >> You are a Jew and you know that you don't have horns. Who are you going
> >> to believe -- the internet links or your own personal experience?
> >>
> > If you're a Jew and you don't have horns, then that's one example of a hornless
> > Jew. But no more than that. It doesn't necessarily mean that the generality
> > of Jews don't have horns.
>
> ...but when you grow up in an area where almost everyone is Jewish and
> NONE has horns, you can make that statement the Jews do not have horns
> with an extremely, extremely, high probability of being correct. In any
> event, my example is that personal experience trumps second hand
> accounts written by people you don't know.
>
Sampling bias. Any sample of Jews you take necessarily excludes Moses, because
> On 12/16/2015 10:41 AM, malcolm...@btinternet.com wrote:
> > On Wednesday, December 16, 2015 at 2:06:40 PM UTC, shel...@thevillages.net wrote:
> >>
> >> Suppose someone listed a series of links stating that Jews have horns.
> >> You are a Jew and you know that you don't have horns. Who are you going
> >> to believe -- the internet links or your own personal experience?
> >>
> > If you're a Jew and you don't have horns, then that's one example of a hornless
> > Jew. But no more than that. It doesn't necessarily mean that the generality
> > of Jews don't have horns.
>
> ...but when you grow up in an area where almost everyone is Jewish and
> NONE has horns, you can make that statement the Jews do not have horns
> with an extremely, extremely, high probability of being correct. In any
> event, my example is that personal experience trumps second hand
> accounts written by people you don't know.
>
you're living 3,500 years or so after Moses's time. So that fact that no Jews known
to you have horns is relevant to the issue of whether Moses had horns (if there
were lots of horned Jews in America, we'd have no difficulty in accepting that Moses
also had horns, and would reject the "rays of light" interpretation).
But it's not decisive. We can't rule out the possibility that Moses had horns simply
because no modern Jews have them.
Herman Rubin
Dec 17, 2015, 1:28:33 PM12/17/15
to
taxation, not insurance. The socialized public school monopoly enabled
the school of educationists to put in social adjustment ahead of learning,
and consequently to degrade the academic standards. Unfortunately,
elementary and secondary education is close enough to a monopoly, and
with the Depression, no good alternative was viable. Students of any
age, and I include even age 3, might well be at different stages for
different subhjects; Mozart was a composer at age 6; I was reading at
age 3. Progression also goes at different rates, and those with
academic mental abilities (exclding the arts and athletics) are now
denied many years of progress.
I am not arguing for the abolition of public schools, but for making
them educational, and imposing heavy fines on the individuals who
decide to hold a child back from learning. Also, teach concepts and
thinking, which cannot be measured by multiple-choice tests. Our leaders
are woefully ignorant in how the universe, and especially our planet,
operates under the laws of nature.
A quote from George Bernard Shaw:
The reasonable man adnusts himself to his environment. The
unreasonable mand attempts to adjust his environment to
himmself. Therefore, all progress depends on the unreasonable man.
It is the individual who generates progress. The 1% who own so much of
the wealth in the US have a far greater set of decision makers than there
are members of Congress.
Objoke: As con is the opposite of pro, what is Congress?
--
This address is for information only. I do not claim that these views
are those of the Statistics Department or of Purdue University.
Herman Rubin, Department of Statistics, Purdue University
hru...@stat.purdue.edu Phone: (765)494-6054 FAX: (765)494-0558
(PeteCresswell)
Dec 17, 2015, 3:08:36 PM12/17/15
to
Per Shelly:
against the risk of an uneducated population - which has consequences
for all of us whether we have children or not.
We don't have any kids in the school system either - and we pay through
the nose to support said system.... I don't like it, but I think I
understand...
--
Pete Cresswell
>school age children and I don't have any.
>If I were to father a child, he could not live with me unless I moved to
>another community. I pay my taxes to the county each year and the lion's
>share goes for schools. Why should I have to pay taxes for schools?
I would guess that the argument is that public schools are a hedge
>If I were to father a child, he could not live with me unless I moved to
>another community. I pay my taxes to the county each year and the lion's
>share goes for schools. Why should I have to pay taxes for schools?
against the risk of an uneducated population - which has consequences
for all of us whether we have children or not.
We don't have any kids in the school system either - and we pay through
the nose to support said system.... I don't like it, but I think I
understand...
--
Pete Cresswell
Herman Rubin
Dec 17, 2015, 3:15:52 PM12/17/15
to
Moses was human. We have many paintings and sculptures of humans
throughout all of history, and even some in quite distant prehistory.
Some show horned characters together with people, but few, if any,
show horned people. This is further evidence.
Beach Runner
Dec 18, 2015, 12:16:40 AM12/18/15
to
In America, with no child left behind any hint of creativity and long term
thinking has been removed. Creative, motivated teachers have generally
left the field, as they are forced to teach for rote learning tests.
Schools get rid of creativity. To be creative, you have to be able to fail
and make mistakes. Mistakes are not accepted in schools. Failure should
be a great learning experience, but in schools it's a disaster.
Getting rid of music and art to focus on rote learning is just a symptom,
as it's well be proven that learning music for example improves academic performance and creates structures in the brain later used for abstract thinking. MRI studies show the same structures built in the brain for
serious music students are later used in math and science. If we want
creative scientists, invest in the arts, not rote memorization and
simple computational skills. Forget thinking.
You're right about Mozart. But there's more to it.
When he was 1 his sister was 3 and taking clavicord lessons. Without TV
or video games watching his sister's lessons were the hottest thing going.
When he started lessons at 3 he knew what the scales and chords sounded like. In fact, if you look at studies of people with perfect pitch or other
such "talents", in most every case, like Mozart, there's a huge early learning component.
If you wanted music, people had to make it, now they use machines.
No wonder the level of music has been reduced to mostly 3 chord music.
Finally, people need to learn to work with other people, but schools teach
people to compete and work individually for the most part.
Our education system could be so much better.
Few creative, intelligent inspired people will go into and stay in public
education these days.
I love teaching music privately, but wish I could teach in a school where
I could allow creativity, self paced learning, and let children dare to fail.
Shelly
Dec 18, 2015, 8:00:08 AM12/18/15
to
making was this is a similar example to what topaz put forth as "Idiotic
and ridiculous".
--
Shelly
Shelly
Dec 18, 2015, 8:08:13 AM12/18/15
to
On 12/18/2015 12:22 AM, Beach Runner wrote:
> In America, with no child left behind any hint of creativity and long term
> thinking has been removed. Creative, motivated teachers have generally
> left the field, as they are forced to teach for rote learning tests.
I am not going to comment on the no child left behind policy, but do
> In America, with no child left behind any hint of creativity and long term
> thinking has been removed. Creative, motivated teachers have generally
> left the field, as they are forced to teach for rote learning tests.
take issue with you about the testing. I grew up in NYC and NYS has
always had something called "Regents exams". These were tests in
individual subjects in High School that we all knew we had to take AND
PASS at the end of the year. They were the same test across the the
state and given on the same day at the same time. The teachers taught
the material for the subject and that material was later tested.
We could by paperback books in the book stores that would have chapters
on the material and would have about ten or so of the tests from
previous years. As STUDENTS we would buy and study them.
The educational system there, while anything can always be improved, was
pretty good.
Finally, I taught for four years in high school (3 at Hillel and one in
a charter school). I never "taught to a test".
--
Shelly
malcolm...@btinternet.com
Dec 18, 2015, 9:15:23 AM12/18/15
to
On Friday, December 18, 2015 at 5:16:40 AM UTC, Beach Runner wrote:
>
> Getting rid of music and art to focus on rote learning is just a symptom,
> as it's well be proven that learning music for example improves academic
> performance and creates structures in the brain later used for abstract
> thinking. MRI studies show the same structures built in the brain for
> serious music students are later used in math and science. If we want
> creative scientists, invest in the arts, not rote memorization and
> simple computational skills. Forget thinking.
>
> Getting rid of music and art to focus on rote learning is just a symptom,
> as it's well be proven that learning music for example improves academic
> performance and creates structures in the brain later used for abstract
> thinking. MRI studies show the same structures built in the brain for
> serious music students are later used in math and science. If we want
> creative scientists, invest in the arts, not rote memorization and
> simple computational skills. Forget thinking.
> I love teaching music privately, but wish I could teach in a school where
> I could allow creativity, self paced learning, and let children dare to
> fail.
Ooh, yeah! All right!
> I could allow creativity, self paced learning, and let children dare to
> fail.
We're jammin':
I wanna jam it wid you.
We're jammin', jammin',
And I hope you like jammin', too.
Ain't no rules, ain't no vow, we can do it anyhow:
I'n'I will see you through,
Except the lyrics are a lie. It's not a jam session, but a highly
crafted commercial piece.
Beach Runner
Dec 18, 2015, 10:47:25 AM12/18/15
to
I taught when we used them.
They were not emphasized throughout the teaching year like NCLB.
With NCLB the entire school year is dominated by these tests.
All lessons are formulated in the style of the tests.
The school's administration is judged by performance of the tests,
so they pass that on to the principals, who pass it on to the teachers.
NCLB was education designed by politicians, not educators.
Yisroel Markov
Dec 18, 2015, 11:37:31 AM12/18/15
to
On Thu, 17 Dec 2015 15:13:45 +0000 (UTC), Shelly
<shel...@thevillages.net> said:
>On 12/17/2015 9:34 AM, topazgalaxy wrote:
>> We do not need big government telling individual patients "you really need this pediatric dental plan even though you have no children and you are 55 years old". Or "you really need this Obstetical care part of health care even though you are menopausal". It is idiotic.
>> "Honest plans??" Ridiculous.
>
>Ok, let me say I agree with you and take it one step further. I live in
>a community where there are no school age children and I don't have any.
>If I were to father a child, he could not live with me unless I moved to
>another community. I pay my taxes to the county each year and the lion's
>share goes for schools. Why should I have to pay taxes for schools?
>Idiotic. Ridiculous.
YOu're presuming the conclusion. It is a good question.
<shel...@thevillages.net> said:
>On 12/17/2015 9:34 AM, topazgalaxy wrote:
>> We do not need big government telling individual patients "you really need this pediatric dental plan even though you have no children and you are 55 years old". Or "you really need this Obstetical care part of health care even though you are menopausal". It is idiotic.
>> "Honest plans??" Ridiculous.
>
>Ok, let me say I agree with you and take it one step further. I live in
>a community where there are no school age children and I don't have any.
>If I were to father a child, he could not live with me unless I moved to
>another community. I pay my taxes to the county each year and the lion's
>share goes for schools. Why should I have to pay taxes for schools?
>Idiotic. Ridiculous.
>Insurance works the same way. You spread the cost of individual expenses
>to cover the entire set, thereby avoiding prohibitive costs for one group.
are two interacting ideas: to spread the cost of schooling over one's
entire working life, not just while you have kids in school, and to
spread the cost over one's entire community, so that this cost is not
a disincentive to have children. That latter is why the childless get
roped in, and there's generally no adjustment of the tax burden to the
size of the family.
But in insurance the cost is spread only over those who take the risk.
E.g., if you never own a car, you never pay for car insurance.
IOW, true insurance equitably spreads both risks and costs (ideally -
specific implementation can be defective), while socializing (via
taxation) only does so with risks. Also, determining what the
appropriate community is for taxation can be tricky, especially in a
mobile society such as ours. When school taxation is town- or
county-based, it makes sense for people to retire in areas with older
populations, or in areas with a high proportion of religious- and
home-schoolers.
(This is also why the Supreme Court was more right than it may have
intended to be when it upheld Obamacare's insurance mandate as a tax,
rather than an illegal penalty. The system resembles school financing
way more than it does insurance financing; it forces younger,
healthier people to pay through the nose now so that they may pay less
when they're older. Herman is right - what we call "health insurance"
ain't it.)
Shelly
Dec 18, 2015, 12:42:38 PM12/18/15
to
On 12/18/2015 11:43 AM, Yisroel Markov wrote:
> (This is also why the Supreme Court was more right than it may have
> intended to be when it upheld Obamacare's insurance mandate as a tax,
> rather than an illegal penalty. The system resembles school financing
> way more than it does insurance financing;
That was my point to topaz.
> (This is also why the Supreme Court was more right than it may have
> intended to be when it upheld Obamacare's insurance mandate as a tax,
> rather than an illegal penalty. The system resembles school financing
> way more than it does insurance financing;
--
Shelly
mm
Dec 18, 2015, 3:28:34 PM12/18/15
to
On Fri, 18 Dec 2015 15:53:05 +0000 (UTC), Beach Runner
<lowh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Shelly
>I'm well aware of the Regents and other past used standardized tests.
>I taught when we used them.
>
>They were not emphasized throughout the teaching year like NCLB.
>
>With NCLB the entire school year is dominated by these tests.
That's what I hear.
<lowh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Shelly
>I'm well aware of the Regents and other past used standardized tests.
>I taught when we used them.
>
>They were not emphasized throughout the teaching year like NCLB.
>
>With NCLB the entire school year is dominated by these tests.
>All lessons are formulated in the style of the tests.
hearing, "What's wrong with teaching to the test?"
>The school's administration is judged by performance of the tests,
>so they pass that on to the principals, who pass it on to the teachers.
thing.
>NCLB was education designed by politicians, not educators.
idea that at the end of days the non-Xians will be left behind [to
suffer and die], and the Xians including a few Jews who have converted
to Xianity will go to heaven, as portrayed in Left Behind, 'a series
of 16 best-selling novels by Tim LaHaye and Jerry B. Jenkins, dealing
with Christian dispensationalist End Times: the pretribulation,
premillennial, "Christian" eschatological viewpoint of the end of the
world.?.....published 1995–2007' Wikip. And well known to Xians by
the time the law was named, plus the concept and the phrase existed
before the book series.
That annoyed me and still does. We don't need American programs named
after prejudicial hostile Xian dogma, which specifically targets Jews,
btw. I can only hope most people didn't realize it was so named at
the time.
I also have the impression that NCLB is going to be replaced by
Common Core, and that this is supposed to be somehow better because
it's established by a vote of state commissions, or a commission made
up of people from many states, and not by a central government
commission. What I see is still public education made unnecessarily
uniform. I don't like that, and it seems to me the sort of thing
conservatives wouldn't and shouldn't like, even though they've been
pushing it, iiuc.
Meir
Beach Runner
Dec 20, 2015, 10:12:49 AM12/20/15
to
On Friday, December 18, 2015 at 12:28:34 PM UTC-8, googy wrote:
> On Fri, 18 Dec 2015 15:53:05 +0000 (UTC), Beach Runner
> <lowh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >> Shelly
> >I'm well aware of the Regents and other past used standardized tests.
> >I taught when we used them.
> >
> >They were not emphasized throughout the teaching year like NCLB.
> >
> >With NCLB the entire school year is dominated by these tests.
>
> That's what I hear.
>
> >All lessons are formulated in the style of the tests.
>
> That's what I hear. I remember seeing one congressman say in a
> hearing, "What's wrong with teaching to the test?"
>
> >The school's administration is judged by performance of the tests,
> >so they pass that on to the principals, who pass it on to the teachers.
>
> That's what I hear. That it's been a big waste of time, for one
> thing.
>
> >NCLB was education designed by politicians, not educators.
>
> BTW, the No Child Left Behind act of 2001 was a reference to the Xian
> idea that at the end of days the non-Xians will be left behind [to
> suffer and die], and the Xians including a few Jews who have converted
> to Xianity will go to heaven, as portrayed in Left Behind, 'a series
> of 16 best-selling novels by Tim LaHaye and Jerry B. Jenkins, dealing
> with Christian dispensationalist End Times: the pretribulation,
> premillennial, "Christian" eschatological viewpoint of the end of the
> world.?.....published 1995-2007' Wikip. And well known to Xians by
> On Fri, 18 Dec 2015 15:53:05 +0000 (UTC), Beach Runner
> <lowh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >> Shelly
> >I'm well aware of the Regents and other past used standardized tests.
> >I taught when we used them.
> >
> >They were not emphasized throughout the teaching year like NCLB.
> >
> >With NCLB the entire school year is dominated by these tests.
>
> That's what I hear.
>
> >All lessons are formulated in the style of the tests.
>
> That's what I hear. I remember seeing one congressman say in a
> hearing, "What's wrong with teaching to the test?"
>
> >The school's administration is judged by performance of the tests,
> >so they pass that on to the principals, who pass it on to the teachers.
>
> That's what I hear. That it's been a big waste of time, for one
> thing.
>
> >NCLB was education designed by politicians, not educators.
>
> BTW, the No Child Left Behind act of 2001 was a reference to the Xian
> idea that at the end of days the non-Xians will be left behind [to
> suffer and die], and the Xians including a few Jews who have converted
> to Xianity will go to heaven, as portrayed in Left Behind, 'a series
> of 16 best-selling novels by Tim LaHaye and Jerry B. Jenkins, dealing
> with Christian dispensationalist End Times: the pretribulation,
> premillennial, "Christian" eschatological viewpoint of the end of the
> the time the law was named, plus the concept and the phrase existed
> before the book series.
>
> That annoyed me and still does. We don't need American programs named
> after prejudicial hostile Xian dogma, which specifically targets Jews,
> btw. I can only hope most people didn't realize it was so named at
> the time.
>
> I also have the impression that NCLB is going to be replaced by
> Common Core, and that this is supposed to be somehow better because
> it's established by a vote of state commissions, or a commission made
> up of people from many states, and not by a central government
> commission. What I see is still public education made unnecessarily
> uniform. I don't like that, and it seems to me the sort of thing
> conservatives wouldn't and shouldn't like, even though they've been
> pushing it, iiuc.
>
> Meir
Common core is only a slight difference. It emphasizes more technical education. It is still education directed by politician, not by people
> before the book series.
>
> That annoyed me and still does. We don't need American programs named
> after prejudicial hostile Xian dogma, which specifically targets Jews,
> btw. I can only hope most people didn't realize it was so named at
> the time.
>
> I also have the impression that NCLB is going to be replaced by
> Common Core, and that this is supposed to be somehow better because
> it's established by a vote of state commissions, or a commission made
> up of people from many states, and not by a central government
> commission. What I see is still public education made unnecessarily
> uniform. I don't like that, and it seems to me the sort of thing
> conservatives wouldn't and shouldn't like, even though they've been
> pushing it, iiuc.
>
> Meir
that understand the latest research in educational pscyhology, cognition
and such. It still thinks you create scientists by teaching them to mechanically compute math.
Here's the research.
Children that have serious music study do better in all academic areas.
That in itself should be enough.
But there's much more. Scholarly research shows that serious music students develop data structures in their brain which MRI studies show light up later in life when the person engages in abstract areas of match, science, physics and the like. If you want creative scientists, you don't drill them on memorizing multiplication tables, you give them a great music program.
Einstein for example attributed his abilities to learning the violin as a toddler, his lifetime love.
This is an area of my expertise, I started reviewing the research on the Subject at Columbia University in the 1970s and have stayed current on the research.
I have a page of my web page summarizing some of the research on Music Study and the Brain,
http://www.comarow.com/music_learning_and_the_brain
Shelly
Dec 20, 2015, 10:23:49 AM12/20/15
to
one anecdotal example -- me. You have heard of "Poor Johnny One-note".
Well, I am "Poor Shelly Half-note". I can't sing worth a damn, and I
can't play any instrument, I can' read music and don't know the first
thing about it other than "I like it" or "I don't like it".
That said I have had two successful careers as a Mechanical Engineer and
as computer programmer (self taught). As a mechanical engineer I have a
foundation paper in the propagation of a high power laser through fog
including droplet vaporization (Applied Optics, April 1974). As a
programmer I am still employed full time with my own company at age 74.
Creativity, thinking out of the box, solving puzzles, etc. may or may
not have to do with music. It my case it didn't. Rather, even as far
back as third grade, I was constructing long problems in multiplication
of fractions which I would then reduce to lowest terms. IOW, it was
MATH and SCIENCE that stimulated my brain, not music.
--
Shelly
malcolm...@btinternet.com
Dec 20, 2015, 1:59:52 PM12/20/15
to
On Sunday, December 20, 2015 at 3:23:49 PM UTC, shel...@thevillages.net wrote:
> What you say may be true about music (and maybe not). Again I will go by
> one anecdotal example -- me. You have heard of "Poor Johnny One-note".
> Well, I am "Poor Shelly Half-note". I can't sing worth a damn, and I
> can't play any instrument, I can' read music and don't know the first
> thing about it other than "I like it" or "I don't like it".
>
We had front row, middle row and back row for music.
> What you say may be true about music (and maybe not). Again I will go by
> one anecdotal example -- me. You have heard of "Poor Johnny One-note".
> Well, I am "Poor Shelly Half-note". I can't sing worth a damn, and I
> can't play any instrument, I can' read music and don't know the first
> thing about it other than "I like it" or "I don't like it".
>
Boys on back row were periodically promoted, until there were only
two people on it. One of them me.
But I'm not inherently non-musical. I've even composed two ditties.
(By humming, I've no idea how to transcribe). I just couldn't
play the recorder, or get the notes in singing.
>
But a statistical correlation between music lessons and good academic
results in other subjects doesn't necessarily mean that the lessons
improve academic performance, or that similar lessons in a seemingly
unrelated subject, like Talmud, wouldn't have the same results.
I'm quite sceptical of the middle class music Mummy. Generally the
children dislike the music instrument lessons, and I don't think much
good comes of it. That said, a friend was nagged by his very ambitious
middle class mother to practice his trumpet, which he hated. But he
got his revenge. He's now a professional trumpeteer.
Herman Rubin
Dec 20, 2015, 7:55:57 PM12/20/15
to
On 2015-12-20, Beach Runner <lowh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Friday, December 18, 2015 at 12:28:34 PM UTC-8, googy wrote:
>> On Fri, 18 Dec 2015 15:53:05 +0000 (UTC), Beach Runner
>> <lowh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> Shelly
>> >I'm well aware of the Regents and other past used standardized tests.
>> >I taught when we used them.
>> >They were not emphasized throughout the teaching year like NCLB.
>> >With NCLB the entire school year is dominated by these tests.
For one thing, they were not multiple choice tests. Multiple choice
> On Friday, December 18, 2015 at 12:28:34 PM UTC-8, googy wrote:
>> On Fri, 18 Dec 2015 15:53:05 +0000 (UTC), Beach Runner
>> <lowh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> Shelly
>> >I'm well aware of the Regents and other past used standardized tests.
>> >I taught when we used them.
>> >They were not emphasized throughout the teaching year like NCLB.
>> >With NCLB the entire school year is dominated by these tests.
tests can be of fair, not good, use if the students have not been
trained on multiple choice tests.
.....................
> Common core is only a slight difference. It emphasizes more technical
education. It is still education directed by politician, not by people >
that understand the latest research in educational pscyhology, cognition
> and such. It still thinks you create scientists by teaching them to
mechanically compute math.
age and in essentially any subject, can be deadly to being able to
think rather than compute. Even a number theorist, or someone working
with numerical procedures, does not have to be able to mentally compute,
or be good with pencil and paper computation.
Throughout history, too much em;phasis has been placed on memorization
rather than understanding. Memorization is easy to test, and rhis is
one reason why the educationists and politicians like it. It does not
require thinking, but I object to the objectives of objective tests.
Common core will cause severe loss of mental capacity. If we want even
a fair educational system, we will need to scrap ours and raise the
standards. I believe that with a decent system, "high school graduates"
will know the basics of all of the sciences, none of which are taught
now until at least advanced undergraduate work in the particular field.
> Here's the research.
> Children that have serious music study do better in all academic areas.
> That in itself should be enough.
> But there's much more. Scholarly research shows that serious music
students develop data structures in their brain which MRI studies show
light up later in life when the person engages in abstract areas of
match, science, physics and the like. If you want creative scientists,
you don't drill them on memorizing multiplication tables, you give them
a great music program.
> Einstein for example attributed his abilities to learning the violin
as a toddler, his lifetime love.
> This is an area of my expertise, I started reviewing the research on
the Subject at Columbia University in the 1970s and have stayed current
on the research.
> I have a page of my web page summarizing some of the research on Music
Study and the Brain,
> http://www.comarow.com/music_learning_and_the_brain
is a correlation between musical and mathematical ability, but I do
not seem to have any musical ability, my son, who had great mathemaical
ability, was so-so with the violin. Yet both of were considered
good mathematicians at an early age.
malcolm...@btinternet.com
Dec 21, 2015, 12:31:30 AM12/21/15
to
On Monday, December 21, 2015 at 12:55:57 AM UTC, Herman Rubin wrote:
>
> Throughout history, too much em;phasis has been placed on memorization
> rather than understanding. Memorization is easy to test, and rhis is
> one reason why the educationists and politicians like it. It does not
> require thinking, but I object to the objectives of objective tests.
>
Historically that's probably been the case. Although before 1600
>
> Throughout history, too much em;phasis has been placed on memorization
> rather than understanding. Memorization is easy to test, and rhis is
> one reason why the educationists and politicians like it. It does not
> require thinking, but I object to the objectives of objective tests.
>
there were no printed books and it was necessary to have a more
oral culture. The druids had a 20 year training period, and wrote
nothing down. The Jewish oral law was also not committed to writing
until Judah haNasi ordered transcription as an emergency measure.
But nowadays there has been a movement in the opposite direction,
to eliminate all rote learning. But it's not sensible to teach
children to work out times table from first principles, then
expect them to use the paper and pencil algorithm for long
multiplication. It simply takes too long. Either require them
to commit the times table to memory, or accept that we don't do
pencil and paper any more. The latter has implications that need to
be thought about, for example if you don't know that 7 x 7 is 49,
you can't "see" that (x -7)(x +7) is going to be x^2 - 49. You
have to teach quadratics differently.
Unfortunately, as you say, times tables become a fetish. Parents
drill children in the car. They mean well, but it's likely to
turn children off mathematics. Teaching the table by rote is
just a job. It should take about a term ((8 x 8) - 8)/2 + 8
entries = 36 things to learn. 11 weeks of term, of which we write
off week 1 to get the children settled, and allow them to play games
in the last week. So nine weeks. Four maths lessons a week =
(let's hear it) 36 lessons. So one lesson a table entry. If you
can't teach the table by rote in that time, your technique is
very poor.
However the child who does best on the rote learning exercise
probably won't be the best mathematician. That's not really a
problem, just a quirk, unless teacher attaches insane value to
current class position.
Yisroel Markov
Dec 21, 2015, 11:29:57 AM12/21/15
to
On Mon, 21 Dec 2015 05:37:13 +0000 (UTC),
malcolm...@btinternet.com said:
>On Monday, December 21, 2015 at 12:55:57 AM UTC, Herman Rubin wrote:
>>
>> Throughout history, too much em;phasis has been placed on memorization
>> rather than understanding. Memorization is easy to test, and rhis is
>> one reason why the educationists and politicians like it. It does not
>> require thinking, but I object to the objectives of objective tests.
>>
>Historically that's probably been the case. Although before 1600
>there were no printed books and it was necessary to have a more
>oral culture. The druids had a 20 year training period, and wrote
>nothing down. The Jewish oral law was also not committed to writing
>until Judah haNasi ordered transcription as an emergency measure.
There were people in Jewish academies of that era whose main job was
malcolm...@btinternet.com said:
>On Monday, December 21, 2015 at 12:55:57 AM UTC, Herman Rubin wrote:
>>
>> Throughout history, too much em;phasis has been placed on memorization
>> rather than understanding. Memorization is easy to test, and rhis is
>> one reason why the educationists and politicians like it. It does not
>> require thinking, but I object to the objectives of objective tests.
>>
>Historically that's probably been the case. Although before 1600
>there were no printed books and it was necessary to have a more
>oral culture. The druids had a 20 year training period, and wrote
>nothing down. The Jewish oral law was also not committed to writing
>until Judah haNasi ordered transcription as an emergency measure.
to remember and recite the material that later became the Mishna and
b'raitot. For that reason, they were called "tanna" even in amoraic
times.
Generally, their names were not preserved because they made no
contribution to analysis.
>But nowadays there has been a movement in the opposite direction,
>to eliminate all rote learning. But it's not sensible to teach
>children to work out times table from first principles, then
>expect them to use the paper and pencil algorithm for long
>multiplication. It simply takes too long. Either require them
>to commit the times table to memory, or accept that we don't do
>pencil and paper any more. The latter has implications that need to
>be thought about, for example if you don't know that 7 x 7 is 49,
>you can't "see" that (x -7)(x +7) is going to be x^2 - 49. You
>have to teach quadratics differently.
>
>Unfortunately, as you say, times tables become a fetish. Parents
>drill children in the car. They mean well, but it's likely to
>turn children off mathematics. Teaching the table by rote is
>just a job. It should take about a term ((8 x 8) - 8)/2 + 8
>entries = 36 things to learn. 11 weeks of term, of which we write
>off week 1 to get the children settled, and allow them to play games
>in the last week. So nine weeks. Four maths lessons a week =
>(let's hear it) 36 lessons. So one lesson a table entry. If you
>can't teach the table by rote in that time, your technique is
>very poor.
>
>However the child who does best on the rote learning exercise
>probably won't be the best mathematician. That's not really a
>problem, just a quirk, unless teacher attaches insane value to
>current class position.
mentioned were good at rote learning, and played a valuable role. That
role is obsolete, but that doesn't mean there aren't others for such
people.
Yisroel Markov
Dec 21, 2015, 12:14:49 PM12/21/15
to
it's not insurance at all?
Herman Rubin
Dec 21, 2015, 1:28:39 PM12/21/15
to
On 2015-12-21, malcolm...@btinternet.com <malcolm...@btinternet.com> wrote:
> On Monday, December 21, 2015 at 12:55:57 AM UTC, Herman Rubin wrote:
>> Throughout history, too much em;phasis has been placed on memorization
>> rather than understanding. Memorization is easy to test, and rhis is
>> one reason why the educationists and politicians like it. It does not
>> require thinking, but I object to the objectives of objective tests.
> Historically that's probably been the case. Although before 1600
> there were no printed books and it was necessary to have a more
> oral culture. The druids had a 20 year training period, and wrote
> nothing down. The Jewish oral law was also not committed to writing
> until Judah haNasi ordered transcription as an emergency measure.
The Egyptians had a rather widespread, at least among merchants,
> On Monday, December 21, 2015 at 12:55:57 AM UTC, Herman Rubin wrote:
>> Throughout history, too much em;phasis has been placed on memorization
>> rather than understanding. Memorization is easy to test, and rhis is
>> one reason why the educationists and politicians like it. It does not
>> require thinking, but I object to the objectives of objective tests.
> Historically that's probably been the case. Although before 1600
> there were no printed books and it was necessary to have a more
> oral culture. The druids had a 20 year training period, and wrote
> nothing down. The Jewish oral law was also not committed to writing
> until Judah haNasi ordered transcription as an emergency measure.
language (Demotic) in the second millennium BCE. So did the
Babylonians with their cuneiform writing, and also the various
Eemitic people in the Fertile Crescent; most of this has vanished.
However, much Ugaritic writing, with a necessarily cuneiform
alphabet, has been found, and it casts quite a bit of light on
God's name and the Tanakh, mostly on the kh part; many of the
Psalms are monotheized versions of Ugaritic psalms.
Aramaic was a widely used language in the Western part of the
Fertile Crescent, and the present Hebres script comes from that,
so it was certainly written. That writing has disappeared; it
was very hard for writing to survive then. In the sixth century
BCE, Athenian citizens were required to be literate.
> But nowadays there has been a movement in the opposite direction,
> to eliminate all rote learning. But it's not sensible to teach
> children to work out times table from first principles, then
> expect them to use the paper and pencil algorithm for long
> multiplication.
non-negastive integers, and to construct the addition and
multiplication tables, and to do it for other bases as well.
I have also seen a claim of good performance only using
multiplication by 1, 2, 5, and 10, and using the distributive
law. This is an old Korean? method known as Chisenbop.
If the child knows how to construct sums and products,
the memorization is likely to come, and as a mathemawtician
I can tell you that it is rare that a mathematician needs to
do arithmetic. I am quick at it, and keep in practice, but
I did not do hours of drill.
> It simply takes too long. Either require them
> to commit the times table to memory, or accept that we don't do
> pencil and paper any more. The latter has implications that need to
> be thought about, for example if you don't know that 7 x 7 is 49,
> you can't "see" that (x -7)(x +7) is going to be x^2 - 49. You
> have to teach quadratics differently.
(x- 73)(x+73) = x^2 - 5329; so what? The ability to do arithmetic
quickly and accurately is useful, but is not basic to understanding
Understanding the structure, and how to prove results, is far
more important.
> Unfortunately, as you say, times tables become a fetish. Parents
> drill children in the car. They mean well, but it's likely to
> turn children off mathematics. Teaching the table by rote is
> just a job. It should take about a term ((8 x 8) - 8)/2 + 8
> entries = 36 things to learn. 11 weeks of term, of which we write
> off week 1 to get the children settled, and allow them to play games
> in the last week. So nine weeks. Four maths lessons a week =
> (let's hear it) 36 lessons. So one lesson a table entry. If you
> can't teach the table by rote in that time, your technique is
> very poor.
Algebraic notation should be used in the beginning; this is the
important part of algebra.
> However the child who does best on the rote learning exercise
> probably won't be the best mathematician. That's not really a
> problem, just a quirk, unless teacher attaches insane value to
> current class position.
one can learn that without all the memorization. As I said,
it is useful but not necessary. They will realize that they
can do reasonable word problems more quickly if they use
algebra and quicker addition and multiplication.
Also, when having them do word problems, do not restrict the
number of variables used. Eliminating variables is cheap.
Herman Rubin
Dec 21, 2015, 2:00:36 PM12/21/15
to
On 2015-12-21, Yisroel Markov <ey.m...@MUNGiname.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 21 Dec 2015 05:37:13 +0000 (UTC),
> malcolm...@btinternet.com said:
>>On Monday, December 21, 2015 at 12:55:57 AM UTC, Herman Rubin wrote:
>>> Throughout history, too much em;phasis has been placed on memorization
>>> rather than understanding. Memorization is easy to test, and rhis is
>>> one reason why the educationists and politicians like it. It does not
>>> require thinking, but I object to the objectives of objective tests.
>>Historically that's probably been the case. Although before 1600
>>there were no printed books and it was necessary to have a more
>>oral culture. The druids had a 20 year training period, and wrote
>>nothing down. The Jewish oral law was also not committed to writing
>>until Judah haNasi ordered transcription as an emergency measure.
> There were people in Jewish academies of that era whose main job was
> to remember and recite the material that later became the Mishna and
> b'raitot. For that reason, they were called "tanna" even in amoraic
> times.
However, Hebrew was a written language even in the time of David,
> On Mon, 21 Dec 2015 05:37:13 +0000 (UTC),
> malcolm...@btinternet.com said:
>>On Monday, December 21, 2015 at 12:55:57 AM UTC, Herman Rubin wrote:
>>> Throughout history, too much em;phasis has been placed on memorization
>>> rather than understanding. Memorization is easy to test, and rhis is
>>> one reason why the educationists and politicians like it. It does not
>>> require thinking, but I object to the objectives of objective tests.
>>Historically that's probably been the case. Although before 1600
>>there were no printed books and it was necessary to have a more
>>oral culture. The druids had a 20 year training period, and wrote
>>nothing down. The Jewish oral law was also not committed to writing
>>until Judah haNasi ordered transcription as an emergency measure.
> There were people in Jewish academies of that era whose main job was
> to remember and recite the material that later became the Mishna and
> b'raitot. For that reason, they were called "tanna" even in amoraic
> times.
and probably long before. Scholars believe that most of
Deuteronomy was written by Jeremiah and his scribe Baruch in
the 7th century BCE; it was supposedly found in the foundation
stone. The Great Assembly essentially finalized Tanakh, with
a few modifications by the early Academy. But parchment had
not yet been invented. What the Great Assembly produced is
not known, and unless something is found, not knowable.
Copying was not that accurate. The separation of versions
of Tanakh into the threads we now have preceded any copies we have
found so far. The oldest found in the Qumran caves is third century
BCE. I recommend Tov, _Literary Analysis of the Hebrew Bible_ for
this and other information. He includes the observation that scribes
frequently wrote what they "remembered" instead of what they were
copying; this was a result of the previous methods of transmission.
> Generally, their names were not preserved because they made no
> contribution to analysis.
Shelly
Dec 21, 2015, 7:32:23 PM12/21/15
to
On 12/21/2015 12:20 PM, Yisroel Markov wrote:
> On Fri, 18 Dec 2015 17:48:18 +0000 (UTC), Shelly
> <shel...@thevillages.net> said:
>
>> On 12/18/2015 11:43 AM, Yisroel Markov wrote:
>>> (This is also why the Supreme Court was more right than it may have
>>> intended to be when it upheld Obamacare's insurance mandate as a tax,
>>> rather than an illegal penalty. The system resembles school financing
>>> way more than it does insurance financing;
>>
>> That was my point to topaz.
>
> Her point was that Obamacare is bad insurance and your point was that
> it's not insurance at all?
Her point was that it was ridiculous/idiotic to have to pay for
> On Fri, 18 Dec 2015 17:48:18 +0000 (UTC), Shelly
> <shel...@thevillages.net> said:
>
>> On 12/18/2015 11:43 AM, Yisroel Markov wrote:
>>> (This is also why the Supreme Court was more right than it may have
>>> intended to be when it upheld Obamacare's insurance mandate as a tax,
>>> rather than an illegal penalty. The system resembles school financing
>>> way more than it does insurance financing;
>>
>> That was my point to topaz.
>
> Her point was that Obamacare is bad insurance and your point was that
> it's not insurance at all?
obstetrical care past menopause, and similar situations. I showed her
how the same thing is true for people without school age children with
taxes for schools. Both are spreading the cost among the entire group so
that no one has to bear the overload. And, yes, they are both taxes.
--
Shelly
W. Baker
Dec 22, 2015, 1:23:01 PM12/22/15
to
Shelly <shel...@thevillages.net> wrote:
I am a woman and I assume that my insurance which costs the same as a
man's (Medicare these days) would have me paing insurance for prostate
issues, which, of course, do ot affect me. I also assume that a man on
the same insurance might well ge paying for insurance regarding uterine
cncer, which I assume he will never get.
Wendy Baker
man's (Medicare these days) would have me paing insurance for prostate
issues, which, of course, do ot affect me. I also assume that a man on
the same insurance might well ge paying for insurance regarding uterine
cncer, which I assume he will never get.
Wendy Baker
malcolm...@btinternet.com
Dec 22, 2015, 8:45:44 PM12/22/15
to
On Tuesday, December 22, 2015 at 6:23:01 PM UTC, W. Baker wrote:
>
> I am a woman and I assume that my insurance which costs the same as a
> man's (Medicare these days) would have me paing insurance for prostate
> issues, which, of course, do ot affect me. I also assume that a man on
> the same insurance might well ge paying for insurance regarding uterine
> cncer, which I assume he will never get.
>
The idea is that insurance involves pooling risks, and everyone
>
> I am a woman and I assume that my insurance which costs the same as a
> man's (Medicare these days) would have me paing insurance for prostate
> issues, which, of course, do ot affect me. I also assume that a man on
> the same insurance might well ge paying for insurance regarding uterine
> cncer, which I assume he will never get.
>
either pays in the same amount because everyone has essentially
the same risks (insuring electrical equipment against loss or
accidental damage), or everyone pays in proportional to their
risk (liability insurance for drivers).
However for medical insurance, this can't work, for several
reasons. The low risk people have to be forced to subsidise
the high risk people.
topazgalaxy
Dec 23, 2015, 12:33:09 AM12/23/15
to
The examples you give of prostate cancer and uterine cancer are both forms of cancer in the reproductive tract.
So, since both men and women can get cancer in the reproductive tract, covering both makes sense. Also from the patient's perspective (the insurance holder's perspective), I would think that men and women who are both at risk for all kinds of cancer would want that in the coverage.
However, a menopausal women cannot get pregnant. Why would she want to pay for that? She cannot benefit
A person who has no children cannot benefit when they pay for pediatric dental care. With insurance, the insured person of course would pay for something that maybe,God forbid, they could get (as a disease or trauma. )
Why pay for something that a person cannot get?
If I own a car, should I pay for a feature that I do not have? How about paying for, say, the insurance on a BMW when I own an Chevy? What if having a convertible car statistically makes it more prone to being expensive to insure?
And I do not own a convertible BMW but I own an old chevy with a normal top?
Should I pay specifically for owning a convertible? If I cannot use that "benefit" it does not seem right to me.
See, with the "affordable" care act, people should be asking "affordable for WHOM?" When deductibles have skyrocketed, co pays have skyrocketed, premiums are going up (30 or 40% in some areas) for whom is it affordable?
mm
Dec 23, 2015, 3:03:35 AM12/23/15
to
what diseases who gets. If it were, women up to age 60 or more would
have to pay more for health insurance because their medical expenses
are higher. Would you like that?
Two other reasons costs have gone up; I think it was before Obamacare
that mental health treatment was to be treated almost in the same
manner as organic diseases. Before there was almost no benefit at all
unless one was freaking out and needed medical supervision or custody.
Since just about everyne is crazy that might add a lot to insurance
costs, but we can't know with out an audit. With computers and even
the current level of adherance to the CPM or the nnn-10, an audit like
that is easy, but I haven't heard anything about this topic.
Secondly the annual maximum and the lifetime maximum for benefits were
discarded under Obamacare. Can I assume you'll impose them on
yourself anyhow? Or will you be happy about it if you, chas
v'sholom, get a catastrophic diseases or injury?
Shelly
Dec 23, 2015, 8:16:57 AM12/23/15
to
age children. My property tax is has about $2,000 a year going to
schools. My community of 120,000 has zero children in school. Yet, we
pay to that for schools. As for your Mercedes example, the analogy here
is that if my property were worth twice as much, my payment to the
schools would about double.
The intention of the act is that EVERYONE has medical coverage. The way
to do that with MANDATORY coverage is to spread the costs so among all.
Otherwise, the ones who need it most will be the least able to pay for
it because their cost would be prohibitive. Is this act perfect? Of
course not. So, I challenge you topaz to come up with a better one where
EVERYONE is covered.
Hint: people without coverage were using the ER rather than going to a
doctor. With those highly inflated costs, who do you think was paying
for it if not the ones with insurance? It was a case of pay me now or
pay me later.
So, rather than rail against it, why not suggest something better where
EVERYONE is covered?
--
Shelly
malcolm...@btinternet.com
Dec 23, 2015, 9:25:36 AM12/23/15
to
On Wednesday, December 23, 2015 at 8:03:35 AM UTC, googy wrote:
>
> Two other reasons costs have gone up; I think it was before Obamacare
> that mental health treatment was to be treated almost in the same
> manner as organic diseases. Before there was almost no benefit at all
> unless one was freaking out and needed medical supervision or custody.
> Since just about everyne is crazy that might add a lot to insurance
> costs, but we can't know with out an audit.
>
Catch 22 - you can't get a discharge for psychiatric reasons unless you
>
> Two other reasons costs have gone up; I think it was before Obamacare
> that mental health treatment was to be treated almost in the same
> manner as organic diseases. Before there was almost no benefit at all
> unless one was freaking out and needed medical supervision or custody.
> Since just about everyne is crazy that might add a lot to insurance
> costs, but we can't know with out an audit.
>
request it, but if you request a psychiatric discharge you are
obviously sane so it is rejected.
The rule actually makes perfect sense. A genuinely psychotic bomber
pilot would quickly be dragged to the medical bay by his crew
and forced to request a psychiatric discharge, against his protests
that he was bombing at 10 feet rather than 10,000 feet as ordered,
because God had told him to.
If you allow people to self-present with sub-clinical, subjective
symptoms, then you get large numbers demanding treatment, and you
have to be be very careful in rationing privileges or subsidised
treatment, or the system cannot cope.
topazgalaxy
Dec 23, 2015, 9:26:51 AM12/23/15
to
Expanding insurance can INCREASE ER usage. People get the impression that now they have that insurance "gold Master card" and they have no sense of financial responsibility many times (not all the time but many times).
As primary care doctors quit, die and retire, where will patients go? Now we have quick care clinics sprouting up in Walmart but for chronic medical issues if the patient has lousy insurance they still cannot find a doctor for chronic conditions. Why should a doctor or a practice take an insurance that pays junk?
While one of the goals of the "Affordable" Care Act was to expand coverage, well, if people would rather pay the penalty income tax than buy the insurance, you will never achieve 100% coverage. (You said EVERYONE which means 100%). Because people can still chose to go bare, you will not get everyone covered with Obamacare. Are you suggesting that the penalty tax for not having insurance be something much more punitive, like 10,000 dollars?
And if millions of Americans have totally lousy coverage ( such as having a family deductible of 12,000 dollars that makes it financially unrealistic for them to go to the doctor much), yes we can say they have coverage but that is like someone driving a Pinto waiting for that famous gas tank to explode.
Yes we can say they have a car . So what?
And why punish the people who just happen to own Cadillacs? (ie "Cadillac plans"). P S I think Congress may have just postponed that terrible excise tax by 2 years...I do not know if Obama signed it. So it goes into effect in 2020.
The problem is, as for right now, the Cadillac tax was going to be a major source of money for Obamacare. There are graphs showing this--as premiums go up, more and more people would be caught in that Cadillac tax. Hillary made a promise --to get union votes I am sure-- she would stop that tax.
So if the Cadillac tax is postponed or ended, where is the funding for Obamacare?
Right from the start, I felt strongly that economically Obamacare was not sustainable . Especially at a time when our debt was so high as a nation.
It is like a Ponzi scheme.
So which is the lesser of the two evils--
Have a ponzi scheme that bankrupts the nation and has massive economic consequences for everyone but the super rich or not have insurance coverage for 100% of Americans?
Since we do not have insurance coverage for 100% of Americans anyway (because they can choose to not buy insurance) well, I think that is the lesser of the two evils.
topazgalaxy
Dec 23, 2015, 9:35:02 AM12/23/15
to
[ Moderator's Comment: Please get back on topic (Jewish culture) or drop it
HPG ]
You may be correct ( I am not sure) that annual/lifetime caps on benefits were discarded under Obamacare. I suppose ? the Prez's focus was on preventing personal bankruptcy.
However my lifetime monetary cap before the new law was very high, so yes, I would take it back. Now I have a lifetime cap on Physical therapy instead -- never had that before the new law. God forbid I get a stroke, or back pain or some kind of accident requiring lots of visits for physical therapy. I will eventually end up paying the full cost of that too.
Insurance may be about pooling risk, yes, but people should be able to tailor a plan that suits them. A person with no children does not need pediatric dental coverage. They should not need to pay for that. Period. A menopausal women should not pay for the risk of her becoming pregnant. period. (no pun)
Women who are young enough to be pregnant should be "the pool" for that risk. It is logical. Adults who have kids with teeth -- those families form the pool for pediatric dental coverage.
Obamacare, by making ?10 or more items mandatory in the law, removed the ability of the individual to tailor a plan that suits them.
It also feeds the argument that it is a government take over of health care.
The individual should have much more choice with insurance...what do I not need? what do I need? do I want to choose Doctor X vs Doctor Y , or M D Anderson Cancer center vs other hospital?
What has happened as a result of the law is that individual choices have been limited or abruptly changed. I posted links earlier; people on Blue Cross in Texas had their PPO plan taken away so if they live a distance from that national level cancer center they cannot get coverage there. Maybe they are fighting cancer and they had a cancer doctor there for 2 years, now due to the new rule, they have to go elsewhere for economic reasons unless they want to pay cash. . Choices for the patient are being curtailed.
The patients of course who benefited are people with pre existing conditions, or people who are getting a gov't subsidy. The rest of us are paying for that in more ways than one.
Obamacare should have had a law in there that said that if people liked their old insurance they could keep it period. That was the promise of Obama.
Senator Grassley in 2009 (summer) was on the Senate floor and proposed putting that statement of Obama right into the law (if you like your insurance you can keep it) ...before the law was passed in March 2010. But every democratic senator voted against it. Every Democrat voted against the promise that Obama was making to the people of the country. Doesn't that at least raise the question of why would they do that-- if the President's promise was honest and accurate?
They voted against the promise Obama-- their party's President-- was making.
I would have wanted to keep my insurance plan. (Grassley's proposal) The President said 25 times I could keep it. Every Democrat voted against it, basically saying that people like me could not keep my insurance. That of course was not shown to the people of the USA in a transparent way. Did't Obama promise something about transparency too?
HPG ]
However my lifetime monetary cap before the new law was very high, so yes, I would take it back. Now I have a lifetime cap on Physical therapy instead -- never had that before the new law. God forbid I get a stroke, or back pain or some kind of accident requiring lots of visits for physical therapy. I will eventually end up paying the full cost of that too.
Insurance may be about pooling risk, yes, but people should be able to tailor a plan that suits them. A person with no children does not need pediatric dental coverage. They should not need to pay for that. Period. A menopausal women should not pay for the risk of her becoming pregnant. period. (no pun)
Women who are young enough to be pregnant should be "the pool" for that risk. It is logical. Adults who have kids with teeth -- those families form the pool for pediatric dental coverage.
Obamacare, by making ?10 or more items mandatory in the law, removed the ability of the individual to tailor a plan that suits them.
It also feeds the argument that it is a government take over of health care.
The individual should have much more choice with insurance...what do I not need? what do I need? do I want to choose Doctor X vs Doctor Y , or M D Anderson Cancer center vs other hospital?
What has happened as a result of the law is that individual choices have been limited or abruptly changed. I posted links earlier; people on Blue Cross in Texas had their PPO plan taken away so if they live a distance from that national level cancer center they cannot get coverage there. Maybe they are fighting cancer and they had a cancer doctor there for 2 years, now due to the new rule, they have to go elsewhere for economic reasons unless they want to pay cash. . Choices for the patient are being curtailed.
The patients of course who benefited are people with pre existing conditions, or people who are getting a gov't subsidy. The rest of us are paying for that in more ways than one.
Obamacare should have had a law in there that said that if people liked their old insurance they could keep it period. That was the promise of Obama.
Senator Grassley in 2009 (summer) was on the Senate floor and proposed putting that statement of Obama right into the law (if you like your insurance you can keep it) ...before the law was passed in March 2010. But every democratic senator voted against it. Every Democrat voted against the promise that Obama was making to the people of the country. Doesn't that at least raise the question of why would they do that-- if the President's promise was honest and accurate?
They voted against the promise Obama-- their party's President-- was making.
I would have wanted to keep my insurance plan. (Grassley's proposal) The President said 25 times I could keep it. Every Democrat voted against it, basically saying that people like me could not keep my insurance. That of course was not shown to the people of the USA in a transparent way. Did't Obama promise something about transparency too?
Shelly
Dec 23, 2015, 10:16:59 AM12/23/15
to
while on duty (not combat). He was unable to put on his gas mask by
himself (in a tank) and had to have a buddy do it for him. When he was
sent to a psychiatrist (after the doctors "treated" his shoulder), he
was asked if he wanted to go home. He answered something like "Well, I'm
not planning on buying a condo here". That was enough for the shrink to
think he just wanted to go home. it took a while, but eventually he was
sent home because of the injury (thank God). (It took a surgery by my
doctor to correct the surgery he received from the army after coming
home to where now his shoulder is fine.)
--
Shelly
Shelly
Dec 23, 2015, 10:26:05 AM12/23/15
to
On 12/23/2015 9:40 AM, topazgalaxy wrote:
> A person with no children does not need pediatric dental coverage. They should not need to pay for that. Period. A menopausal women should not pay for the risk of her becoming pregnant. period. (no pun)
A person with no children in school should not have to pay for schools.
> A person with no children does not need pediatric dental coverage. They should not need to pay for that. Period. A menopausal women should not pay for the risk of her becoming pregnant. period. (no pun)
Period. (no pun).
--
Shelly
Shelly
Dec 23, 2015, 10:38:24 AM12/23/15
to
better where EVERYONE is covered?" I will not respond to any of your
criticizing specifics until you properly respond to the above.
I am absolutely against eventually dying. I have no solution to it, so
I simply shut up about it rather than complaining incessantly.
Your turn.
--
Shelly
Yisroel Markov
Dec 23, 2015, 11:44:27 AM12/23/15
to
On Wed, 23 Dec 2015 13:22:42 +0000 (UTC), Shelly
<shel...@thevillages.net> said:
[snip]
>The intention of the act is that EVERYONE has medical coverage.
So far it's failing at that - at least 10% of the population remains
uninsured. That's less than the 14% at the start, but AFAIK most of
the decrease is due not to Obamacare market reforms, but to Medicaid
expansion.
>The way
>to do that with MANDATORY coverage is to spread the costs so among all.
>Otherwise, the ones who need it most will be the least able to pay for
>it because their cost would be prohibitive. Is this act perfect? Of
>course not. So, I challenge you topaz to come up with a better one where
>EVERYONE is covered.
>
>Hint: people without coverage were using the ER rather than going to a
>doctor. With those highly inflated costs, who do you think was paying
>for it if not the ones with insurance? It was a case of pay me now or
>pay me later.
The problem with that is that empirical evidence shows that, for
whatever reason, extending coverage does not reduce ER utilization. By
now we have over 15 years of Romneycare experience to show this fact,
and it's being replicated nationwide.
>So, rather than rail against it, why not suggest something better where
>EVERYONE is covered?
If you're saying that offering a better alternative is a prerequisite
to criticism, I disagree.
<shel...@thevillages.net> said:
[snip]
>The intention of the act is that EVERYONE has medical coverage.
uninsured. That's less than the 14% at the start, but AFAIK most of
the decrease is due not to Obamacare market reforms, but to Medicaid
expansion.
>The way
>to do that with MANDATORY coverage is to spread the costs so among all.
>Otherwise, the ones who need it most will be the least able to pay for
>it because their cost would be prohibitive. Is this act perfect? Of
>course not. So, I challenge you topaz to come up with a better one where
>EVERYONE is covered.
>
>Hint: people without coverage were using the ER rather than going to a
>doctor. With those highly inflated costs, who do you think was paying
>for it if not the ones with insurance? It was a case of pay me now or
>pay me later.
whatever reason, extending coverage does not reduce ER utilization. By
now we have over 15 years of Romneycare experience to show this fact,
and it's being replicated nationwide.
>So, rather than rail against it, why not suggest something better where
>EVERYONE is covered?
to criticism, I disagree.
Yisroel Markov
Dec 23, 2015, 11:44:38 AM12/23/15
to
On Wed, 23 Dec 2015 08:09:20 +0000 (UTC), mm <mm2...@bigfoot.com>
said:
[snip]
>>See, with the "affordable" care act, people should be asking "affordable for WHOM?" When deductibles have skyrocketed, co pays have skyrocketed, premiums are going up (30 or 40% in some areas) for whom is it affordable?
>>
>Insurance is about pooling risk.
Yes, by identifiable risk groups. Obamacare is not really insurance.
>It doesn't have to be divided by
>what diseases who gets. If it were, women up to age 60 or more would
>have to pay more for health insurance because their medical expenses
>are higher. Would you like that?
Like it or not, that's how it is:
How premiums are set
--------------------
Under the health care law, insurance companies can account for only 5
things when setting premiums.
Age: Premiums can be up to 3 times higher for older people than for
younger ones.
https://www.healthcare.gov/how-plans-set-your-premiums/
Before Obamacare that differential could be much higher than 3 times.
[snip]
said:
[snip]
>>See, with the "affordable" care act, people should be asking "affordable for WHOM?" When deductibles have skyrocketed, co pays have skyrocketed, premiums are going up (30 or 40% in some areas) for whom is it affordable?
>>
>Insurance is about pooling risk.
>It doesn't have to be divided by
>what diseases who gets. If it were, women up to age 60 or more would
>have to pay more for health insurance because their medical expenses
>are higher. Would you like that?
How premiums are set
--------------------
Under the health care law, insurance companies can account for only 5
things when setting premiums.
Age: Premiums can be up to 3 times higher for older people than for
younger ones.
https://www.healthcare.gov/how-plans-set-your-premiums/
Before Obamacare that differential could be much higher than 3 times.
[snip]
Herman Rubin
Dec 23, 2015, 6:14:06 PM12/23/15
to
On 2015-12-23, Shelly <shel...@thevillages.net> wrote:
> On 12/23/2015 12:38 AM, topazgalaxy wrote:
>> On Tuesday, December 22, 2015 at 1:23:01 PM UTC-5, W. Baker wrote:
>>> Shelly <shel...@thevillages.net> wrote:
>>> : On 12/21/2015 12:20 PM, Yisroel Markov wrote:
>>> : > On Fri, 18 Dec 2015 17:48:18 +0000 (UTC), Shelly
>>> : > <shel...@thevillages.net> said:
......................
> On 12/23/2015 12:38 AM, topazgalaxy wrote:
>> On Tuesday, December 22, 2015 at 1:23:01 PM UTC-5, W. Baker wrote:
>>> Shelly <shel...@thevillages.net> wrote:
>>> : On 12/21/2015 12:20 PM, Yisroel Markov wrote:
>>> : > On Fri, 18 Dec 2015 17:48:18 +0000 (UTC), Shelly
>>> : > <shel...@thevillages.net> said:
> Hint: people without coverage were using the ER rather than going to a
> doctor. With those highly inflated costs, who do you think was paying
> for it if not the ones with insurance? It was a case of pay me now or
> pay me later.
There are also practices which provide for the poor. Maybe there are fewer
of these now because of the move to mass insurance, but I know about them
80 years ago because at that time my family was definitely among the poor.
The service probably was not as good, but it was available.
> So, rather than rail against it, why not suggest something better where
> EVERYONE is covered?
not; there has to be a sufficient number of providers even to make them
a universal availability. As we are far from this, we are in a situation
in which a rationing mechanism is needed. Everyone can only be slightly
covered.
I would suggest that any legislator voting for a mandatory bill be
limitied to the coverage given by it, even if he or she has a fortune
available which could be used for medical care. We can only get good
government if the government is afraid of the people.
mm
Dec 23, 2015, 8:05:05 PM12/23/15
to
On Wed, 23 Dec 2015 16:50:14 +0000 (UTC), Yisroel Markov
<ey.m...@MUNGiname.com> wrote:
>On Wed, 23 Dec 2015 13:22:42 +0000 (UTC), Shelly
><shel...@thevillages.net> said:
>
>[snip]
>
>>The intention of the act is that EVERYONE has medical coverage.
>
>So far it's failing at that - at least 10% of the population remains
Shelly's wrong. It was known from the beginning that it woudn't cover
<ey.m...@MUNGiname.com> wrote:
>On Wed, 23 Dec 2015 13:22:42 +0000 (UTC), Shelly
><shel...@thevillages.net> said:
>
>[snip]
>
>>The intention of the act is that EVERYONE has medical coverage.
>
>So far it's failing at that - at least 10% of the population remains
everyone, and so far it's meeting or exceeding expectations.
It was planned that some that are not covered would be by expanding
Medicaid, but the states have more power over that iiuc and in some
states, the expansion has been stopped.
topazgalaxy
Dec 24, 2015, 12:50:55 AM12/24/15
to
topazgalaxy
Dec 25, 2015, 9:13:51 AM12/25/15
to
0 new messages