And the mythical man month rears its ugly head again

[Lynn McGuire]

500 million lines of code?
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/361743/healthcaregov-needs-five-million-code-lines-rewritten-andrew-johnson

Really? Really? I don't think so.

Lynn

[Chris M. Thomasson]

> "Lynn McGuire" wrote in message news:l43jam$9oq$3...@dont-email.me...

> 500 million lines of code?
>
> http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/361743/healthcaregov-needs-five-million-code-lines-rewritten-andrew-johnson

> Really? Really? I don't think so.

Not half a billion lines of code! Hell no. However, I sure hope they finally
fix the darn thing!

;^/

[woodb...@gmail.com]

On Wednesday, October 23, 2013 3:24:06 PM UTC-5, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
>
> Not half a billion lines of code! Hell no. However, I sure hope they finally
> fix the darn thing!
>

Not me. I think they should throw it away.
Obama seems to like Obamacare the most and wants to
keep it even though it's a big mess.

[Scott Lurndal]

Conflating a web-site that's only used by fucked up red states
that refused to do their own with _any_ of the provisions of
the PPACA shows that you, personally, have no clue what the
PPACA is, or encompasses.

[Chris M. Thomasson]

> > wrote in message
> > news:48fb03bb-9609-4b59...@googlegroups.com...

IMVHO, the "glitches" are just down right embarrassing. Therefore, they
basically __need__ to fix it...

;^/

[woodb...@gmail.com]

On Wednesday, October 23, 2013 3:55:13 PM UTC-5, Scott Lurndal wrote:


Please don't swear here.

Brian
Ebenezer Enterprises
http://webEbenezer.net

[woodb...@gmail.com]

On Wednesday, October 23, 2013 6:21:57 PM UTC-5, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
>
> IMVHO, the "glitches" are just down right embarrassing. Therefore, they
> basically __need__ to fix it...

I'm afraid the "fixes" will only make things worse. They
have the Midas touch.

[woodb...@gmail.com]

On Wednesday, October 23, 2013 8:50:48 PM UTC-5, woodb...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Wednesday, October 23, 2013 3:55:13 PM UTC-5, Scott Lurndal wrote:
>
>
> Please don't swear here.
>

I'm not an expert on Obamacare. I do know they've developed
over 10,500 pages of regulations now and that's more than
8 times the Bible. I think studying the Bible is more
worthwhile than Obamacare.

[Scott Lurndal]

Your ignorance is astounding! Midas touch, indeed. We should wish it were so.

[Christian Gollwitzer]

Am 21.10.13 18:04, schrieb Lynn McGuire:

> 500 million lines of code?
>
> http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/361743/healthcaregov-needs-five-million-code-lines-rewritten-andrew-johnson
>
>
> Really? Really? I don't think so.
>

Caveat emptor, I don't know the website in question (I'm not living in
the US), but I seriously doubt this number, too. The whole Linux kernel
has a total of ~16 million LOC, and I cannot imagine such a thing being
30x more complex than the Linux kernel, even if it would have been
written in COBOL or Unlambda. Maybe it's 500 kLOC? Or they have counted
some compiler output instead of the real source.

Christian

[Lynn McGuire]

Yup, their fixes will probably create more and more
work for the contractor(s).

Lynn

[Geoff]

On Thu, 24 Oct 2013 13:32:40 GMT, sc...@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal)
wrote:

I believe his reference to the Midas touch was that it was to be
regarded as a curse. Since everything Midas touched was turned to
gold, his curse was that he touched his beloved daughter and killed
her instantly when she was turned to gold. The Midas touch was the
touch of death. We should wish it were so, indeed.

[Geoff]

Everything done by the US federal government costs more and takes
longer than it would if done by private industry. It therefore follows
that any computer program done by a contractor for the federal
government will have at least two orders of magnitude more "reported"
lines of code than it actually contains. It's also easy to believe the
reporters pressed for some kind of number from some spokesperson who
has no clue how many actual lines of code are in the project and that
person just tossed out a number that has no basis in fact.

[woodb...@gmail.com]

On Thursday, October 24, 2013 7:02:10 PM UTC-5, Geoff wrote:
>
> I believe his reference to the Midas touch was that it was to be
> regarded as a curse. Since everything Midas touched was turned to
> gold, his curse was that he touched his beloved daughter and killed
> her instantly when she was turned to gold. The Midas touch was the
> touch of death. We should wish it were so, indeed.

I regard the Midas touch as a curse. They are good at
raising money, but what else is the administration good
at?

[David Brown]

If only you lived in a democracy, where the government was of the
people, by the people and for the people. Then you would be able to get
a government that does what is needed by the people (though perhaps not
what is /wanted/ by the people).

Wait a minute, you /do/ live in a democracy.

The people running your country are running it because /you/ voted for
them to do so. /You/ are their boss. If you don't like the situation,
then /you/ do something about it.

In a democracy, you can never please everyone - but if you think there
are things that please /no one/, such as dramatic claims of government
inefficiency, then it is the American citizen - /you/ - who is
ultimately to blame, and who must do something to rectify the situation.
If all you want to do is moan, go tell a hairdresser or a taxi driver -
they get paid to listen.

[Geoff]

On Fri, 25 Oct 2013 09:05:23 +0200, David Brown
<da...@westcontrol.removethisbit.com> wrote:

>Wait a minute, you /do/ live in a democracy.

No, I don't. It's a representative republic, there's a difference.

The Republic of the United States of America was renamed "democracy"
during the Roosevelt administration.

The problem at the moment is that the idiots who vote are appointing
the idiots who desire wealth and power and those idiots are creating
10,000 page laws that they don't read and can't understand before they
vote them into law.

[Bo Persson]

The problem here is that he probably voted for the minority that
believes health care for the population is a waste of money and can't
accept that the administration proposing that actually was re-elected.

Democracy is only good when your own side wins?


Bo Persson

[David Brown]

I actually know all this - my post was exaggerated. The biggest problem
with letting (almost) anybody vote about politics is that almost nobody
is qualified to make good judgements about politics (whether this means
a representative democracy where voters must pick suitable politicians,
or a direct democracy where voters make the political decisions themselves).

The general point remains, however - the politics and government in the
USA is strongly influenced by the voters, and the citizens have a
responsibility for the government. If enough people feel strongly
enough, they should be able to make changes.

I find it ironic that the people (in the western world) who seem to
complain most about their government, especially the federal government,
are Americans - yet these are the same people who are most convinced
that they have the best and most democratic political system.

In Europe, most people think their governments do a reasonable job most
of the time. When they think they are doing too badly, they vote in
someone else at the next election and the politics change (not
everything, and not overnight, but things do change).

[David Brown]

Isn't that true of any disagreement? Arguments always have two sides -
the right side, and the other guy's side.


"I like the idea of democracy. You have to have someone everyone
distrusts," said Brutha. "That way, everyone's happy."

(From "Small Gods" by Terry Prachet)

[woodb...@gmail.com]

On Friday, October 25, 2013 10:13:31 AM UTC-5, Bo Persson wrote:
>
> The problem here is that he probably voted for the minority that
> believes health care for the population is a waste of money and can't
> accept that the administration proposing that actually was re-elected.

One reason I'm opposed to Obamacare is people should be
free to associate with those they choose as far as
health care. That may be the only way to get people
to take responsibility for themselves. In other words,
if you smoke, use marijuana or other illegal drugs,
are obese, ... sorry, but I don't want to join you
in a health care pool. A pool of responsible people
can show others that it's possible to get reasonable
prices on health care, but you have to be accountable.

The Republican majority in the House was also re-elected.

[Geoff]

On Fri, 25 Oct 2013 21:12:58 +0200, David Brown
<david...@removethis.hesbynett.no> wrote:

>On 25/10/13 15:23, Geoff wrote:
>> On Fri, 25 Oct 2013 09:05:23 +0200, David Brown
>> <da...@westcontrol.removethisbit.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Wait a minute, you /do/ live in a democracy.
>>
>> No, I don't. It's a representative republic, there's a difference.
>>
>> The Republic of the United States of America was renamed "democracy"
>> during the Roosevelt administration.
>>
>> The problem at the moment is that the idiots who vote are appointing
>> the idiots who desire wealth and power and those idiots are creating
>> 10,000 page laws that they don't read and can't understand before they
>> vote them into law.
>>
>
>I actually know all this - my post was exaggerated. The biggest problem
>with letting (almost) anybody vote about politics is that almost nobody
>is qualified to make good judgements about politics (whether this means
>a representative democracy where voters must pick suitable politicians,
>or a direct democracy where voters make the political decisions themselves).
>

That voters are unqualified to make those decisions, we agree
completely. Exacerbated by the fact that politicians make promises
they have no intention of keeping, just to get those unqualified
votes.

>The general point remains, however - the politics and government in the
>USA is strongly influenced by the voters, and the citizens have a
>responsibility for the government. If enough people feel strongly
>enough, they should be able to make changes.
>

The problem begins when Congress feels they must actually do something
like write bills and pass them. Americans like gridlock. When the
executive and legislative branches are of opposite parties, everything
is fine. If congress runs rampant, the president can veto. It's only
when we elected Obama and had a Democrat-led Senate that we ran into
problems and the ACA was passed. Clinton couldn't get it passed while
Republicans led during his terms and Reid-Pelosi couldn't get it past
Bush's veto.

>I find it ironic that the people (in the western world) who seem to
>complain most about their government, especially the federal government,
>are Americans - yet these are the same people who are most convinced
>that they have the best and most democratic political system.
>

Americans have been complaining about their government since it was
founded, it's part of the culture. Go read "John Adams" by David
McCullough for some insights. Every one of the founders could find
something wrong with the way the others ran their presidencies. About
the only president in history who was universally liked was Washington
and he achieved that by serving his two terms and retiring from public
life.

>In Europe, most people think their governments do a reasonable job most
>of the time. When they think they are doing too badly, they vote in
>someone else at the next election and the politics change (not
>everything, and not overnight, but things do change).

In some ways a parliamentary process is superior to the process we
have in the states. Only a maximum of 1/3 of the house can be turned
out in a single election so for a complete turn-over it takes 6 years.
Senators are even harder to get rid of, they prefer to die in office
or go until the bitter end like Ted Kennedy. The problem is when the
voters seem to think having these fossils in office is a good thing.

[Geoff]

On Fri, 25 Oct 2013 17:13:31 +0200, Bo Persson <b...@gmb.dk> wrote:

>
>The problem here is that he probably voted for the minority that
>believes health care for the population is a waste of money and can't
>accept that the administration proposing that actually was re-elected.
>
>Democracy is only good when your own side wins?

I voted for Obama because McCain proved himself insane by choosing
Palin as a running mate. I prefer my presidents crafty and sane. I
also would be in favor of single-payer but Europe and Canada have
demonstrated that you can't have single-payer without rationing and
lack of availability.

I had an ER experience in 2009. Four days in hospital. Net result, a
bill for $80,000+ from the hospital. Net paid by private insurance
carrier by contract $17,700. Net co-pay to me $890. I don't know where
the rest of it disappeared into. Never heard another peep from anyone.

In 2002 I was in England and came down with otitus. This is a problem
when your a yank and your not on the national healthcare plan, or is
it? Have the local guy take you to the clinic and explain your
situation, pay twenty pounds to the doctor for the exam and
prescription, stop at the chemist on the way home, another 17 pounds
for medicine and were all back at the pub for bangers and mash.

Here's what the future holds for America: Fewer doctors, fewer
hospitals, lower quality care, longer wait times for surgeries,
problems with approval for treatments, higher costs all around.

[Geoff]

On Fri, 25 Oct 2013 15:55:04 -0700 (PDT), woodb...@gmail.com wrote:

>One reason I'm opposed to Obamacare is people should be
>free to associate with those they choose as far as
>health care.

The fundamental problem with national health care is the coercion. You
will be fined or harassed until you join the lemmings.

[Ian Collins]

Geoff wrote:
>
> Here's what the future holds for America: Fewer doctors, fewer
> hospitals, lower quality care, longer wait times for surgeries,
> problems with approval for treatments, higher costs all around.

Maybe they'll migrate down here.

Those of us in civilised parts of the world where universal healthcare
is a given always enjoy a hearty chuckle at our American friends
getting to a lather over what we take for granted. Here universal
healthcare isn't an issue, it just is!

Now back to some C++...

--
Ian Collins

[woodb...@gmail.com]

On Friday, October 25, 2013 7:33:02 PM UTC-5, Geoff wrote:

> In some ways a parliamentary process is superior to the process we
> have in the states. Only a maximum of 1/3 of the house can be turned
> out in a single election so for a complete turn-over it takes 6 years.

Every seat in the House is up for election every 2 years.

[Bo Persson]

Yeah, that's the point - everyone is covered.

The argument that some of you could get better care if others get
nothing doesn't really bite on non-Americans.


Bo Persson

[Geoff]

Actually, those others don't get "nothing". They get the same
treatment now as they would under Obamacare. No hospital refuses care
based on ability to pay. If you walk into ER and need surgery, you get
it, then and there if necessary. The hospitals make up for the lost
revenue by increasing the charges for those with insurance.

Under the new plan, those who cannot afford to pay the premiums will
be subsidized, whose who can pay more will be paying larger premiums
up front. Socialism is complete, redistribution is done by the central
government and the nanny state is in charge, like it or not.

Why should there be a requirement to "buy in" at all? Simply use the
money collected by income taxes to pay for it all.

[woodb...@gmail.com]

On Saturday, October 26, 2013 2:35:47 AM UTC-5, Bo Persson wrote:
>
> Yeah, that's the point - everyone is covered.
>
> The argument that some of you could get better care if others get
> nothing doesn't really bite on non-Americans.
>

As I see it this is a little bit of Obama's record:

Number of people on food stamps is up 12 million
Record poverty
Debt to GDP ratio has increased

He has sucked in so many ways. I don't trust him
and wouldn't vote for him if he were running for
dog catcher.

[brad]

"Geoff" <ge...@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
news:chsm699pl5mmh9bl9...@4ax.com...

The people who are really getting screwed over by this are the young people.
The law say that the insurance rate for a 64 year old, obese, alcoholic can
be no more than three times the rate for a fit 21 year old with a healthy
life style. The number 3 was arrived at, mostly, by a bunch of guys who
went to law school but barely practiced law, not actuaries. Except for when
I was in the army I never went to a doctor even once until I was in my
fifties. Many years ago, health care was 10% of the GNP, I am sure the
proportion has grown a lot since then. Of course, much of that 10% already
came from the government in the form of Medicaid and Medicare, now the young
can, and will, supplement that source.

The young are also being screwed by the debt thing. Someday, the Chinese
are going to want actual money, not a new IOU to replace the current one.
Who is going to live through that inflationary period? Same guys.

[Geoff]

Yep, same here. In retrospect I would have used doctors more. When I
was 24 I was paying premiums for services I wasn't using. They count
on that. But I was the young buck back then, paying for the older
guys' retirements and pensions and now I have to fund my own with
401(k) and IRA money and there's no pension fund to rely on because
they liquidated or stole it all. Now I'm 59 and seeing a doctor every
two months to be sure the 6 medications I'm taking for heart disease
aren't killing my liver.

It always sucks to be young and penniless and paying someone else's
debt. Then it sucks to be old and tired and paying someone else's
debt. Then you die and they collect all your wealth and pay someone
else's debt.

[David Brown]

I can't say I really understand the American health care system - but
comparing the statistics to those of other Western countries shows that
Americans pay far more than most others, and receive - on average - far
worse health care. Some of this is skewed by good things, such as that
the USA is willing to do costly and difficult health care that will
raise the average. And some of this will be factors of lifestyle or
other aspects of living in the USA (put /extremely/ simply, when people
eat more hamburgers their health goes down and their health care costs
go up). But the rest of the difference is because the health care
system is organised in a different way from other countries with
national health care.

From what I understand, for an uninsured (or badly insured) American,
you always have the right to free emergency treatment - but no rights to
free /preventative/ or low-grade treatments. This means that instead of
treating a problem early, when it is easy and cheap to treat, it must be
left until it is critical.

A significant proportion of American health spending goes to things
other than health care - the whole "health insurance" industry just
shuffles money around, taking off chunks as it goes, and adds nothing to
the treatment. I would be loath to view "House" or "Grey's Anatomy" as
realistic, but I think a lot more health spending money goes to lawyers
or to plaintiffs in the USA than in European countries.

But ultimately I think your last sentence says it all - "Simply use the
money collected by income taxes to pay for it all". The key point is
"simply" - a /real/ national heath service (not the worst-of-both-worlds
Obamacare) avoids much of the bureaucracy in financing health care, and
leaves doctors and patients free to concentrate on health.

Of course it is good to have private health care as an option - people
who have lots of money have the right to spend it as they want, and
should be allowed to buy better hospital food, extra tests, shorter
waiting lists, etc. But the aim should be that most people get most of
their treatment from the national system.

[Rosario1903]

On Mon, 28 Oct 2013 13:59:11 +0100, David Brown
<da...@westcontrol.removethisbit.com> wrote:

>On 26/10/13 10:01, Geoff wrote:
>> On Sat, 26 Oct 2013 09:35:47 +0200, Bo Persson <b...@gmb.dk> wrote:
>>
>>> Geoff skrev 2013-10-26 02:49:
>>>> On Fri, 25 Oct 2013 15:55:04 -0700 (PDT), woodb...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> One reason I'm opposed to Obamacare is people should be
>>>>> free to associate with those they choose as far as
>>>>> health care.
>>>>
>>>> The fundamental problem with national health care is the coercion. You
>>>> will be fined or harassed until you join the lemmings.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Yeah, that's the point - everyone is covered.
>>>
>>> The argument that some of you could get better care if others get
>>> nothing doesn't really bite on non-Americans.
>>>
>>>

>I can't say I really understand the American health care system - but
>comparing the statistics to those of other Western countries shows that
>Americans pay far more than most others, and receive - on average - far
>worse health care. Some of this is skewed by good things, such as that
>the USA is willing to do costly and difficult health care that will
>raise the average. And some of this will be factors of lifestyle or
>other aspects of living in the USA (put /extremely/ simply, when people
>eat more hamburgers their health goes down and their health care costs
>go up). But the rest of the difference is because the health care
>system is organised in a different way from other countries with
>national health care.

i don't know for sure
but i suspect more than 50% of usa money on "health care", go to
lawyers and assurance
so not to hospital and dottors etc

[woodb...@gmail.com]

Twila Brase does a good job of explaining alternatives to
Obamacare and Medicare

www.cchfreedom.org/about.php

Twila Brase for President.

Brian
Ebenezer Enterprises - Obama==Hillary==Trump==sucks.
http://webEbenezer.net