Prometheus
Mr Rob
This is the second Unreal mod I've come across this week. Prometheus
is supposedly a single player co-op game along the lines of Portal and
Mirror's Edge. It has an interesting time twisting premise involving
your own character from the past, present and future.
Get the demo here (320MB)
http://www.beyondunreal.com/view_story.php?id=13013
Unlike the more recent "Out of Hell" mod (which needed UT2K4
installed), you won't need to have any UE3 games installed provided
that you have the recently released UDK already installed. The UDK
weighs in at 562MB
Schrodinger
Thanks for the headsup - downloading them now!
Mr Rob
>> Unlike the more recent "Out of Hell" mod (which needed UT2K4
>> installed), you won't need to have any UE3 games installed provided
>> that you have the recently released UDK already installed. The UDK
>> weighs in at 562MB
>>
>> http://www.udk.com/launch.html
>>
>> http://www.udk.com/download.html
>
>Thanks for the headsup - downloading them now!
There's another award winning UDK demo called "The Ball" which is
billed as an "episodic puzzle based action game".
http://download.beyondunreal.com/fileworks.php/official/udk/UDKInstall-TheBallDemo.exe
--
Rob
Schrodinger
Well, just managed to install the UDK on Win 7 64bit. I ended up having
to run as admin with WinXP compatibility, install to drive other than C.
Also it wouldn't work because a windows update was pending!
Off to download the games now.
Apropos nothing, I've had to be using Thunderbird as Win 7 doesn't come
with Outlook Express and I hate it.
Mr Rob
>Well, just managed to install the UDK on Win 7 64bit. I ended up having
>to run as admin with WinXP compatibility, install to drive other than C.
> Also it wouldn't work because a windows update was pending!
>
>Off to download the games now.
>
>Apropos nothing, I've had to be using Thunderbird as Win 7 doesn't come
>with Outlook Express and I hate it.
I know it's OT for the thread, but I cannot tolerate OE. I didn't
realise it wasn't bundled with Windows 7 even though I've been using
RC1 for almost 9 months.
I use Agent and have done for at least 10 years. I used to have Lotus
Notes at work, which was pretty good, but since changing employers
three years ago I'm forced to use Outlook.
I have used Thunderbird and Pegasus in the past. I like both of those
but always end up going back to Agent. I guess it's just a case of
what you're used to.
--
Rob
Andrew
<noemail...@jsjsaiiowppw.com> wrote:
>I have used Thunderbird and Pegasus in the past. I like both of those
>but always end up going back to Agent. I guess it's just a case of
>what you're used to.
Agent is the software I have used since the early days of the net. I
have never found anything nearly as good for Usenet. For email I have
used Gmail since it started.
--
Andrew, contact via http://interpleb.googlepages.com
Help make Usenet a better place: English is read downwards,
please don't top post. Trim replies to quote only relevant text.
Check groups.google.com before asking an obvious question.
Schrodinger
It's just because I don't seem to be able to get it to organise the
threads in the way OE does. Like you, I've been using OE for as long as
I can remember so I'm just used to what it does and how it does it.
When I get done jaffing around with these games and all the other Win7
stuff on my to do list, I'll look into how to make it act like OE I guess...
Les Steel
"Schrodinger" <n...@way.com> wrote in message
news:QmzJm.11664$TK7....@newsfe18.ams2...
You can download windows live mail. It's the same situation as Vista, except
that at least has windows mail installed.
I'm posting using it now, I eventually got sick of how thunderbird organises
threads and gone back to microsoft!
Schrodinger
Ah! I didn't want to install that in case it was anything to do with
windows messenger. I'll have a look now - thanks.
Shawk
> Les Steel wrote:
>>
>>
>> You can download windows live mail. It's the same situation as Vista,
>> except that at least has windows mail installed.
>>
>> I'm posting using it now, I eventually got sick of how thunderbird
>> organises threads and gone back to microsoft!
>>
>>
>
> Ah! I didn't want to install that in case it was anything to do with
> windows messenger. I'll have a look now - thanks.
I installed Win7 last night on a friends laptop (I did mine on release).
I put Outlook straight back on mine but he wanted Win mail (he got
used to it with Vista)
You download the Live Essentials pack but can choose not to d-load
messenger, toolbar and all the other crap that comes with the pack
(though it has a few decent things like movie maker and photo gallery
that are missing since Vista).
It did not however install Windows mail but Windows 'Live' Mail. This
has a different folder structure so I wasn't able (yet) to restore his
emails. Anybody find a solution for this let me know...
Schrodinger
"Shawk" <sh...@gmx.com.3guesses> wrote in message
news:KZOdnWvnU6oKSGvX...@bt.com...
I did see a workaround for this somewhere this morning, I'll have a look
for it.
Other than that, I have downloaded Windows Live Mail and am posting from it
now. Thx.
Nostromo
Domini:
So this entire mod is free or do you need any Unreal game installed?
--
Nostromo
Tim O
<noemail...@jsjsaiiowppw.com> wrote:
Same here. In fact when I did my final install of Win7 64 bit, I
figured I'd upgrade to the newest version of Agent.
I had been wondering how they were going to survive now that many
service providers are dropping their usenet feeds and there are a
pretty small core of people who will pay 10 bucks and up a month for
giganews.
Found the answer when I went to upgrade Agent. They have contracted
Easynews to become a usenet provider, including binaries.
Check out the prices... They have a 12 gig tier for like 3 bucks a
month. They have higher service tiers for pirat, er people that need
more than that.
rms
It should have been a headline in this newsgroup. Epic released the
full Unreal3 engine for free, with very reasonable usage limitations (e.g.,
you can make and sell a game with this and actually keep all income up to
$5000, then they get a % after that). This really is a huge deal: Bring on
Trespasser2!!
rms
Nostromo
-0700, Anno Domini:
Trei kewl - cheers for the heads up! Off to d/l engine/base game + mod :).
--
Nostromo
Nostromo
Anno Domini:
Hmmm...installed both the UDK & Prometheus on both an XP system & Win7x64.
Both crap out when you run Prometheus after a few secs of the splash screen.
Great.
--
Nostromo
Werner Spahl
> Thus spake Nostromo <nos...@forme.org>, Tue, 10 Nov 2009 21:00:21 +1100,
> Anno Domini:
>
> Hmmm...installed both the UDK & Prometheus on both an XP system &
> Win7x64. Both crap out when you run Prometheus after a few secs of the
> splash screen. Great.
Prometheus and the UDK run great on my 32bit XP machine and while I don't
think this puzzle game is something for me, the idea is quite cool and the
quality top notch! The same applies to the Ball demo although I won't buy
or play the full game either. But for small independent companies looking
for a professional engine to do their games the whole UDK thing is great!
--
Dr. Werner Spahl (sp...@cup.uni-muenchen.de) Freedom for
Wesp5 @ Vampire: The Masquerade - Bloodlines Vorlonships
Daffy Duck
> Apropos nothing, I've had to be using Thunderbird as Win 7 doesn't come
> with Outlook Express and I hate it.
You have to download Microosft Essentials and it has Windows Live email,
Movie Maker and a few other apps that don't come with Win7, they are all
free.
I choose to run Thunderbird anyway because when I was running Win7RC and
had Live installed a couple of games I had installed that used Live
accounts opened up my Live Email (I guess to log in?)when I went to run
the games, most annoying and I am now using Thunderbird on Win7 final to
make sure it doesn't happen again.
Daffy Duck
> I'm posting using it now, I eventually got sick of how thunderbird
> organises threads and gone back to microsoft!
>
>
Thunderbird organizes them the same way so don't know what that
complaint is for. You probably clicked one of the tabs at the top of the
posts window and messed up the organization yourself. Also, Thunderbird
bottom posts by default and not rudely top post like Outlook does.
Daffy Duck
> Found the answer when I went to upgrade Agent. They have contracted
> Easynews to become a usenet provider, including binaries.
> Check out the prices... They have a 12 gig tier for like 3 bucks a
> month. They have higher service tiers for pirat, er people that need
> more than that.
Astraweb is much butter than Easynews. With Astraweb you can buy by data
amount so you don't have to may a monthly fee like with all the others.
If all you mostly do on Usenet is text, a $20.00 purchase from Astraweb
will last a year or two instead of paying $10.00 per month.
Nostromo
Anno Domini:
Or you can use Motzarella for free! :)
--
Nostromo
Daffy Duck
> Or you can use Motzarella for free! :)
>
Not if you want to be a troll. They already booted me off of there, the
bastages.
Mr Rob
wrote:
Good grief.
Do ISP's and news feeds even bother with what people say on Usenet?
The overwhelmingly attractive thing about Usenet has always been the
lack of moderation. Particularly in the alt*. hierarchy.
Was there ever more fun to be had than back in the days of dial-up,
when we had the self appointed Usenet Police waving their RFC's
around? The beauty of Usenet has always been that if somebody is
being a complete and utter cnut, there's nothing to stop you from
being an ever bigger cnut in return.
Surely people don't get booted off for trolling in this day and age?
--
Rob
Andrew
<noemail...@jsjsaiiowppw.com> wrote:
>Was there ever more fun to be had than back in the days of dial-up,
>when we had the self appointed Usenet Police waving their RFC's
>around? The beauty of Usenet has always been that if somebody is
>being a complete and utter cnut, there's nothing to stop you from
>being an ever bigger cnut in return.
For me the beauty of Usenet is self moderation so you can killfile the
numpties, something you can't do on web forums.
Mr Rob
>For me the beauty of Usenet is self moderation so you can killfile the
>numpties, something you can't do on web forums.
That as well.
I do try not to use the killfile. Just occasionally though, you really
have no choice.
On the opposite side of the coin, I have zero time for serial
*PLONK*ers that have their say and then killfile people. They're just
as bad as the retards in online games that send tells from behind
their "ignore" commands.
Usenet is for the thick skinned. Long may it stay that way.
--
Rob
Daffy Duck
> For me the beauty of Usenet is self moderation so you can killfile the
> numpties, something you can't do on web forums.
Yes, you can. Most web forums have a block user option. My problem with
web forums is the wannabe Nazi moderators at many of them.
Daffy Duck
> Surely people don't get booted off for trolling in this day and age?
Motzarella does because it is a free service and you are required to
follow the rules.
Nostromo
Anno Domini:
LOL! Not that I believe a word you say, but you must be a really piss-poor
troll if they did kick you. :-p
--
Nostromo
Wile E. Coyote
>
> LOL! Not that I believe a word you say, but you must be a really piss-poor
> troll if they did kick you. :-p
>
I expect I got kicked because some numbnuts like you made a complaint.
Schrodinger
"Mr Rob" <noemail...@jsjsaiiowppw.com> wrote in message
news:d3gof5ph25cahuusl...@4ax.com...
I fell out with a well known troll on alt.games.starsiege.tribes , wrote a
daft poem about him in reply just asking him to F off and die and my ISP
pulled my internet access after his whining complaint.
Long story short, I changed ISPs immediately, but never underestimate the
willingness of a jobsworth to ruin your day...
Nostromo
Domini:
Well then, you didn't state your case very well (or could be bothered to) in
your own defense. Last I checked, freedom of speech was only a right in the
good ol US of A & in most other countries, things like libel/defamation,
inciting to riot or treasonous commentary ALL preclude that freedom. They
should kick far, far more asshats off of the net than they do. If most of
them were in a club, society, or similar, they'd get *thrown* out, usually
after being well beaten, which is what they deserve. Not saying that was you
at all Schro, rather that troll cunt, but you took the bait & ended up 2nd
best because he drew 1st. Same for Wile here who is a self-confessed troll
of the worst kind & expects sympathy from us...? *boggle*
If it was me, I'd hound that troll mofo for months via every email addy
possible & report each & every of his posts until HIS ISP & news provider
both kicked him in disgust. You must give up too easily mate ;)
I got pinged on the LOTRO forums early days during the beta, because I gave
some racist prick an earful. Never mind he completely deserved it, I still
got the black mark against my account. Mind you, I complained for *weeks* &
took it up the chain twice before they said 'stop complaining' & basically
towed the company line just to support their moderator who was impetuous &
completely in the wrong, having not read the entire thread/exchange (which
was huge granted) - probably just saw the report email, read my post in a
vacuum & decided the colourful language was enough to warrant a cross. Oh
well, it'll teach us to not expect justice in this world/life, but I'm still
more than willing to throw myself on my grenade most times, if it means
taking the pricks out with me! ;).
--
Nostromo
Briarroot
> Thus spake "Schrodinger" <n...@way.com>, Fri, 13 Nov 2009 18:00:14 -0000, Anno
> Domini:
>
>> daft poem about him in reply just asking him to F off and die and my ISP
>> pulled my internet access after his whining complaint.
>>
>> Long story short, I changed ISPs immediately, but never underestimate the
>> willingness of a jobsworth to ruin your day...
>
> Well then, you didn't state your case very well (or could be bothered to) in
> your own defense. Last I checked, freedom of speech was only a right in the
> good ol US of A & in most other countries,
>
In the USA, "freedom of speech" means that government may not suppress
political speech. It does not apply in private contractual arrangements
such as between employers and employees, or between service providers
and customers. For example, employers are permitted to prohibit their
employees from talking about 'sensitive' subjects with sexual or racial
connotations; and ISPs may legally cancel a subscriber's account for any
number of reasons, usually those specifically stated in the User
Agreement, but generally also for anything that they think might result
in legal action against them.
Still, I'd bet most ISPs would laugh off a complaint about someone
'trolling' Usenet groups, especially if such trolling wasn't actually
disruptive, like bombing a group with thousands of spam messages.
They'd be much more apt to take action over complaints about things like
libel, plagiarism, kiddie porn, etc, because those things could get them
into trouble. Free news services may be more sensitive however, because
they're operating with somebody else's money.
--
"As an American, I am embarrassed that the U.S. House of Representatives
has 220 members who actually believe the government can successfully
centrally plan the medical and insurance industries. I'm embarrassed
that my representatives think that government can subsidize the
consumption of medical care without increasing the budget deficit or
interfering with free choice. It's a triumph of mindless wishful
thinking over logic and experience." - John Stossel
Unknown
>Thus spake "Schrodinger" <n...@way.com>, Fri, 13 Nov 2009 18:00:14 -0000, Anno
>Domini:
>
>>
.....
I've been surprised at how common it is, even typical it is that
trolls will leave their asses hanging out in the breeze. Just sayin.
And then they whine about it???
Wile E. Coyote
>Same for Wile here who is a self-confessed troll
> of the worst kind & expects sympathy from us...? *boggle*
Me? Look for sympathy? Never! I was just pointing out that the free ISP
you recommended is shite if you want an ISP that allows freedom of
speech. I am going to practice my right to free speech right now, YOU
AUSSIE CUNT, and there is not a damn thing you can do to stop me from
calling you that.
Arccos
"Briarroot" <bria...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:hIudna0QybovUWPX...@posted.toastnet...
<snip>
> "As an American, I am embarrassed that the U.S. House of Representatives
> has 220 members who actually believe the government can successfully
> centrally plan the medical and insurance industries. I'm embarrassed that
> my representatives think that government can subsidize the consumption of
> medical care without increasing the budget deficit or interfering with
> free choice. It's a triumph of mindless wishful thinking over logic and
> experience." - John Stossel
I actually laughed a bit when I read that. Medicare and Medicade are
excellent programs. As is FDIC. Not a single person covered by FDIC has lost
a dime with the recent bank closures.
Remember back a few years ago when insurance companies refused to pay out
Katrina victims in New Orleans and other areas? And before that, I believe
there were a few other major disasters multiple insurance companies saying
they couldn't pay out in full, due to the cost.
The insurance and medical industries are interested in running their
industries successfully from the perspective of their shareholders, not
their customers. I don't doubt the government will make some mistakes with
the process, but at least they're trying to fix what's broken. Insurance
companies are fighting tooth and nail to keep the status quo, and to keep
your "free choice" between choosing employer provided heathcare or nothing.
Even the AMA supports federal health care reform.
Nostromo
-0800, Anno Domini:
Sure, but there's plenty I & others can do to stop reading your drivel.
--
Nostromo
Tim O
I think most people here can both give and take it pretty well. I
didn't think any ISP/usenet provider would ban or restrict you for
what you just said.
There was a jerkoff on here getting all fired up over game arguments
and then threatening to steal peoples identities (real
identities/social security #'s) because he had access to them through
his job or some shit.
Possibly not even true, but I think threating that kind of stuff will
get you in booted in a hurry.
Mr Rob
wrote:
>There was a jerkoff on here getting all fired up over game arguments
>and then threatening to steal peoples identities (real
>identities/social security #'s) because he had access to them through
>his job or some shit.
>
>Possibly not even true, but I think threating that kind of stuff will
>get you in booted in a hurry.
The only three occasions I've ever know anybody lose their Internet
access through activities on Usenet was many years ago (possibly as
many as 10) when an online acquaintance lost their Demon account for
repeated use of extremely crude language in a moderated newsgroup over
a period of several weeks. I don't mean just the odd expletive but
posts that were little more than lines and lines of profanities aimed
a particular person.
The other two occasions were people on Freeserve ( when it was
completely free excpet for phone changes) who decided it would be
smart to post peoples alleged real life names, addresses and phone
numbers just because a stupid Usenet flame war.
Those reasons are understandable and would still carry the same
punishment today if somebody complained and it was possible to trace
the offending poster.
Apart from that, Usenet is pretty much open season and always has
been. People that get easily offended or worked up about text on a
screen really shouldn't use it outside of moderated or closed groups.
--
Rob
Briarroot
> "Briarroot" <bria...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:hIudna0QybovUWPX...@posted.toastnet...
>
>
> <snip>
>
>> "As an American, I am embarrassed that the U.S. House of Representatives
>> has 220 members who actually believe the government can successfully
>> centrally plan the medical and insurance industries. I'm embarrassed that
>> my representatives think that government can subsidize the consumption of
>> medical care without increasing the budget deficit or interfering with
>> free choice. It's a triumph of mindless wishful thinking over logic and
>> experience." - John Stossel
>
> I actually laughed a bit when I read that. Medicare and Medicade are
> excellent programs.
>
Define "excellent." Both programs are a tremendous burden on the
already cash-strapped taxpayers, Medicare forces medical service
providers to accept lower payments for patients on the program, which in
turn forces those same providers to increase their fees for the rest of
us; meanwhile the cost of Medicaid alone has nearly bankrupted
half-a-dozen states. You and I must have very different conceptions of
excellence!
Read this:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/07/30/AR2009073002816.html
Significant quote:
"Health-care reform is bogged down because none of the bills before
Congress deals with the staggering waste of the current system,
estimated to be $700 billion to $1 trillion annually. The waste flows
from a culture of health care in which every incentive is to do more --
that's how doctors make money and that's how they protect themselves
from lawsuits.
Yet the congressional leadership has slammed the door on solutions to
the one driver of waste that is relatively easy to fix: the erratic,
expensive and time-consuming jury-by-jury malpractice system. Pilot
projects could test whether this system should be replaced with expert
health courts, but leaders who say they want to cut costs will not even
consider them.
What are they scared of? The answer is inescapable -- such expert courts
might succeed and undercut the special interest of an influential lobby,
the trial lawyers. An expeditious and reliable new system would
compensate patients more quickly and at a fraction of the overhead of
the current medical justice system, which spends nearly 60 cents of
every dollar on lawyers' fees and administrative costs.
Even more compelling, expert health courts would eliminate the need for
"defensive medicine," thereby helping to save enough money for America
to afford universal health coverage.
Defensive medicine -- the practice of ordering tests and procedures that
aren't needed to protect a doctor from the remote possibility of a
lawsuit -- is ubiquitous. A 2005 survey in the Journal of the American
Medical Association related that 93 percent of high-risk specialists in
Pennsylvania admitted to the practice, and 83 percent of Massachusetts
physicians did the same in a 2008 survey. The same Massachusetts survey
showed that 25 percent of all imaging tests were ordered for defensive
purposes, and 28 percent and 38 percent, respectively, of those surveyed
admitted reducing the number of high-risk patients they saw and limiting
the number of high-risk procedures or services they performed."
Then read this:
http://www.aaos.org/news/aaosnow/nov08/managing7.asp
Significant quote:
"Defensive medicine is defined as providing medical services that are
not expected to benefit the patient but that are undertaken to minimize
the risk of a subsequent lawsuit. Diagnostic defensive medicine
practices have a much greater impact on costs than do therapeutic
defensive practices. The quality of the literature on the true costs of
defensive medicine and its impact on healthcare costs is poor; few good
studies exist, and cost estimates vary widely.The study quoted most
often is by Daniel P. Kessler and Mark B. McClellan. To really
understand actual costs, Kessler and McClellan analyzed the effects of
malpractice liability reforms using data on Medicare beneficiaries who
were treated for serious heart disease. They found that liability
reforms could reduce defensive medicine practices, leading to a 5
percent to 9 percent reduction in medical expenditures without any
effect on mortality or medical complications.
If the Kessler and McClellan estimates were applied to total U.S.
healthcare spending in 2005, the defensive medicine costs would total
between $100 billion and $178 billion per year. Add to this the cost of
defending malpractice cases, paying compensation, and covering
additional administrative costs (a total of $29.4 billion). Thus, the
average American family pays an additional $1,700 to $2,000 per year in
healthcare costs simply to cover the costs of defensive medicine."
> As is FDIC. Not a single person covered by FDIC has lost
> a dime with the recent bank closures.
>
Hmm, as carefully as I have searched, I can find no mention of the FDIC
in that quotation or in the article from which it was excerpted. The
Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation guarantees individual citizen's
deposits in commercial *banks* - nothing more.
Read the original article here:
http://reason.com/archives/2009/11/12/the-us-house-of-presumptuous-m
> Remember back a few years ago when insurance companies refused to pay out
> Katrina victims in New Orleans and other areas? And before that, I believe
> there were a few other major disasters multiple insurance companies saying
> they couldn't pay out in full, due to the cost.
>
How many homeowners in New Orleans actually had flood insurance? Wasn't
flooding intentionally *not* covered by the majority of those policies -
for obvious reasons?
> The insurance and medical industries are interested in running their
> industries successfully from the perspective of their shareholders, not
> their customers.
>
Obviously, but what you fail to account for is that satisfying the
customer is an essential part of running a successful business. What is
not generally known is that the health insurance industry, which just by
the way is *already* one of the most heavily regulated industries in the
nation, averages *less* percentage of profit from gross receipts than
the average of all industries in America. It isn't as if they're
deliberately stealing. You've read too many John Grisham novels! <g>
Read:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091025/ap_on_go_co/us_fact_check_health_insurance
> I don't doubt the government will make some mistakes with
> the process, but at least they're trying to fix what's broken.
>
That's just the point: Congress isn't trying to fix what's broken!
Medicare wouldn't be needed if Social Security worked as advertised, and
Medicaid wouldn't be needed if Welfare and the hundreds of ancillary
programs that it spawned worked as advertised. Health care in the USA
is expensive precisely *because* of the system wherein the majority
receive health care services through their employer's insurance or
through Medicare and Medicaid. It's not really insurance at all. These
so-called "insurance" programs cover cover things that ordinary
insurance was never designed to cover; things like minor illnesses,
routine doctor's office visits and minor optical and dental work. All
of that raises premiums tremendously! Imagine how expensive your car
insurance would be if it had to cover the cost of minor repairs, oil
changes, tires, wipers etc. Car insurance is intended to protect owners
from catastrophic financial loss not everyday expenses, yet that is what
people have come to expect from health insurance. It's stupid! People
could instantly lower their insurance costs if they purchased health
insurance to protect themselves from financial devastation brought on by
serious illness, extended hospital stays and catastrophic accidents.
Furthermore, this system, which is actively encouraged by long-standing
government policy, produces a feeling that medical care is 'free' and
that inevitably results in an over-consumption of medical services. It
induces greater demand on a limited system, and greater demand for
limited services *always* inflates costs. A government take over, or a
government system that finds itself in competition with the present
insurance system, will not alter any of this.
The bottom line is this: Health care in America is expensive right now
*because* of past government follies. Encouraging employer health
insurance plans by offering tax breaks (which cost the government
upwards of $200 billion/yr), offering 'free' medical services to seniors
and the poor via Medicare and Medicaid, which doubly burden the average
taxpayer by first making him pay for these programs and then forcing him
to pay more for his own health care. So what is Congress' solution? An
even *larger* and more ridiculous government folly? Uh... no thanks!
And please don't be naive enough to think that this issue is about a
group of politicians who want to help people in need. Don't make me
laugh! This is really all about the Democratic Party's desire to
establish a new dependent constituency that consistently votes for them.
They've already got the poor hooked, now they're after the middle class.
> Insurance companies are fighting tooth and nail to keep the status quo,
>
You apparently haven't been following the news. The health insurance
companies are positively *salivating* at the thought of 40 some million
new customers who are going to be forced by the Federal government to
buy health insurance even though most of them don't want it. You see,
all of the bills now under consideration contain a clause specifying
"mandatory" participation under threat of fine or prosecution. Those
who can't afford it will get it paid for by the Feds. What more would a
fat cat insurance exec desire? <g>
> and to keep
> your "free choice" between choosing employer provided heathcare or nothing.
> Even the AMA supports federal health care reform.
>
These past presidents of the AMA clearly disagree.
"The United States has the best health care in the world today, and
thanks to the ever-expanding frontiers of science and medical innovation
the brightest days are ahead. It is true that there are Americans who
fall through the cracks of our medical system every day - and as a
caring nation, we must do what we can to expand access to medical care
to those who need it. But this can be accomplished without a costly and
inefficient government overhaul of the entire system. More
government-run health insurance will only lead to disaster." - Doctors
Donald J. Palmisano, William G. Plested II and Daniel H. Johnson Jr.,
former Presidents of the American Medical Association
Then there is this:
http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article.aspx?id=506199
Significant quote:
"Two-thirds, or 65%, of doctors say they oppose the proposed government
expansion plan. This contradicts the administration's claims that
doctors are part of an 'unprecedented coalition' supporting a medical
overhaul."
"Four of nine doctors, or 45%, said they 'would consider leaving their
practice or taking an early retirement' if Congress passes the plan the
Democratic majority and White House have in mind."
We *can* lower the cost of health care in the US, but only if we're
willing to see reality.
1) People should stop expecting health care insurance to cover minor
ills, office visits and routine services like dental and optical.
Insurance should be though of as an emergency fund intended to cover
only serious illness or catastrophic accidents - much like car insurance
or homeowners insurance. That change alone would save everyone enormous
sums!
2) Existing state laws prohibit people from buying health insurance from
companies operating in other states, effectively forming local
monopolies. I can shop online for car insurance, buying it from whoever
offers the best terms, located anywhere in the country, but if I wanted
to buy health insurance I would be forced to get it from a company in my
home state. That bit of anti-competitive nonsense is extremely
important because current health care insurance rates display huge
differences in different regions of the country. Let's repeal those laws.
3) Medicare. The US government forces doctors and hospitals to accept
lower than standard remuneration for services rendered to Medicare
patients and that revenue is made up by charging non-Medicare patients
*more* for the same services. Since Medicare is perceived by it's
recipients to be a 'free' service, it encourages what is known as
"over-consumption," meaning that they are highly likely to demand *more*
medical services than average and more than is actually necessary. Let's
dissolve Medicare and instead boost Social Security payments to provide
a realistic standard of living. In that way, retired individuals would
be forced to make useful decision about health care services just like
those of us who are uninsured. Why is the system for paying retirees
divorced from the system that pays for their health. The division makes
no sense!
4) Tax exemptions given to businesses which provide health insurance to
their employees cost the Federal government more than $200 billion each
year, however, private individuals who wish to buy health insurance must
do so with after-tax income. In effect, this makes private health
insurance dramatically more expensive for those who don't receive it as
a benefit from their employer. Let's end this exemption; in fact, let's
stop encouraging businesses from offering health insurance altogether.
They don't require any fiscal incentive to keep good employees anyway.
And, as I said above, health insurance provided by employers produces a
serious and unnecessary over-consumption of medical services which
artificially exaggerates the supply/demand curve. Let's end this practice.
5) Tort reform. Medical malpractice suits costs insurance companies
many millions each year, why *not* set some realistic limitations on the
size of malpractice awards? Why *not* let a little reality into the
system? Lower malpractice premiums for doctors and hospitals will lead
to lower fees for for their services which will lead to lower health
insurance premiums *for* those patients.
Almost unnoticed by the mass media, the Pelosi bill (HR 3962) contains a
clause which would roll back the tort reforms enacted by various State
legislatures over the past 20 years.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703740004574513752760366872.html
Significant quote:
"Buried in Speaker Nancy Pelosi's 1,990-page bill is a provision that
provides 'incentive payments' to each state that develops an
'alternative medical liability law' that encourages 'fair resolution' of
disputes and 'maintains access to affordable liability insurance.'
Sounds encouraging. Read on, however, and you come to this nugget: The
state only qualifies if its new law 'does not limit attorneys' fees or
impose caps on damages.'"
No read this interview with the current president of the American
Medical Association:
http://www.usnews.com/articles/news/national/2009/07/29/ama-healthcare-reform-bill-a-starting-point.html
Why is tort reform off the table? Could it be because trial lawyers
*love* the unlimited gold mine offered by medical malpractice suits?
(Let's ask John Edwards) Could it be because trial lawyers are the
single largest source of Democratic Party campaign funds?
--
"There is an air of absurdity to what is mistakenly called 'health-care
reform.' Everyone knows that the United States faces massive
governmental budget deficits as far as calculators can project, driven
heavily by an aging population and uncontrolled health costs (Medicare &
Medicaid). As we recover slowly from a devastating recession, it's
widely agreed that, though deficits should not be cut abruptly (lest the
economy resume its slump), a prudent society would embark on long-term
policies to control health costs, reduce government spending and curb
massive future deficits. The administration estimates these at $9
trillion from 2010 to 2019. The president and all his top economic
advisers proclaim the same cautionary message.
So what do they do? Just the opposite. Their far-reaching overhaul of
the health-care system - which Congress is halfway toward enacting -
would almost certainly make matters worse. It would create new,
open-ended medical entitlements that threaten higher deficits and would
do little to suppress surging health costs. The disconnect between what
President Obama says and what he's doing is so glaring that most people
could not abide it. The president, his advisers and allies have no
trouble. But reconciling blatantly contradictory objectives requires
them to engage in willful self-deception, public dishonesty, or both." -
Robert J. Samuelson, The Washington Post - November 16, 2009
Wile E. Coyote
> Sure, but there's plenty I & others can do to stop reading your drivel.
>
Nah, your killfiles are ineffective against a seasoned troll such as
myself. Remember, I have multiple Usenet accounts and use multiple nicks.
Wile E. Coyote
> Possibly not even true, but I think threating that kind of stuff will
> get you in booted in a hurry.
For sure, not to mention in legal trouble if you can track the SoB down.
Wile E. Coyote
> I actually laughed a bit when I read that. Medicare and Medicade are
> excellent programs. As is FDIC. Not a single person covered by FDIC has lost
> a dime with the recent bank closures.
I wouldn't waste your time with Briarrot, he is a poster child for right
wing republican paranoid freak.
Briarroot
> Arccos wrote:
>> "Briarroot" <bria...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:hIudna0QybovUWPX...@posted.toastnet...
>>
[snip]
Well, Arccos? Have you nothing to say in response?
--
"'My body, my choice' has long been a rallying cry for abortion-rights
advocates on the left, many of whom have recently been vocal supporters
of the Democratic health care reform agenda. But as abortion advocates
are now discovering, abortion rights aren't as easily compatible with
health care reform as they might have once thought. Turns out the more
government gets involved in health care, the more difficult it becomes
to truly retain choices about one's body.
For pro-choice, pro-reform liberals, this is exactly the problem: On the
one hand, they support a massive expansion of government funding and
bureaucratic control into nearly every corner of the health care system.
On the other hand, they're incensed that the government would make rules
about how that funding can be used.
It's grimly ironic: After spending much of the year ridiculing opponents
of health care reform for insisting that reform would put government in
between doctors and patients, they're now up in arms that government has
gotten involved in decisions they believe should only be made by women
and their doctors.
But if the history of bureaucracy teaches us anything, it's that what
the government funds is what the government controls. Or, to put it
another way: When the government gets involved in making everyone's
health care decisions, it may be your body, but it won't be your
choice." - Pete Suderman, Reason Magazine
Arccos
> Briarroot wrote:
>> Arccos wrote:
>>> "Briarroot" <bria...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>> news:hIudna0QybovUWPX...@posted.toastnet...
>>>
>
> [snip]
>
> Well, Arccos? Have you nothing to say in response?
>
>
What's left to say? You aren't going to change my opinion, and I'm not going
to change yours. Any further discussion is rather unproductive, don't you
think?
Briarroot
> "Briarroot" <bria...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:BtudnR9llews7pjW...@posted.toastnet...
>> Briarroot wrote:
>>> Arccos wrote:
>>>> "Briarroot" <bria...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:hIudna0QybovUWPX...@posted.toastnet...
>>>>
>> [snip]
>>
>> Well, Arccos? Have you nothing to say in response?
>>
>>
>
> What's left to say? You aren't going to change my opinion, and I'm not going
> to change yours. Any further discussion is rather unproductive, don't you
> think?
>
I'm not surprised.
Your 'opinions' on this subject appear to be little more than uniformed,
emotion-driven misconceptions and regurgitated commonplace myths. When
faced with the task of supporting these opinions with logical
development based on factual data, you cavil about how "unproductive" it
all would be. That can be translated as meaning that you don't want to
think about anything which might lead you to re-evaluate your beliefs
and challenge your core values, and thus you are unwilling to defend
them. I suggest that arguments like this can be *very* useful, helping
both participants and onlookers to (re)educate themselves and refine
their views. If that isn't "productive," then what is?
I remind you that *you* chose to inject a comment on *my* beliefs and
values, about which I remain ready to argue the merits, going so far as
to introduce a new Off-Topic thread in order to do so. But now you wish
to run away? I'm not surprised.
--
"Someday this country will have a health-care debate that's not abject
in its idiocy. President Barack Obama made a 'public option' his
centerpiece not because it's the answer to what's broken in the U.S.
system, but because it's a halfway house to a single-payer setup that
liberal Democrats have always wanted. Team Obama also knew the public is
concerned about rising costs, so they jammed together a hooey-filled
argument that the public option was somehow the solution to rising costs.
What's left is a package of 'reforms' that are mere trite extensions of
what we've been doing for decades. That is, piling up mandates on
private insurers and then lying that this somehow isn't driving up the
cost of health insurance; piling up subsidies for health consumption and
then lying that this somehow isn't responsible for runaway health-care
spending." - Holman W. Jenkins, Jr., The Wall Street Journal