Discussion:
AT&T job cuts
(too old to reply)
h***@bbs.cpcn.com
2020-03-07 19:55:16 UTC
Permalink
from the telecom newsgroup
AT&T is weighing a long list of plans to cut tens of billions of
dollars in costs that will likely result in even more dramatic job
losses for the connectivity and entertainment giant's employees. The
company previously said it plans to cut $1.5 billion in labor-related
costs this year.
https://www.sdxcentral.com/articles/news/att-puts-more-jobs-on-the-chopping-block/2020/03/
In addition to job cuts, the above article says there will be
wage and benefit cuts as well. Workers will end up doing more
work for less compensation.

Many workers these days are being hammered by lost benefits.
They must pay higher premiums for health care, yet receive
fewer benefits. If they get sick, the unremimbursed, out of
pocket and deductible costs are very substantial, costing
the worker many thousands of dollars.

In my opinion, that sucks. I believe companies, with their
record profits and tax cuts, can well afford to pay their
workers' health care.

The link below is to a 1947 Bell System advertisement
describing the trustee responsibility of company
management. Unlike today, where managers answer solely
to enriching the stockholders, in the past management
recognized it served customers and employees as well
as stockholders.

https://books.google.com/books?id=nlIEAAAAMBAJ&lpg=PA32&dq=life%20bell%20system%20employment&pg=PA32#v=onepage&q&f=false

Personally, I think about that when I get my Comcast bill.
They have increased their rates 10% while removing channels
from my lineup and reducing service quality. The company
is incredibly profitable.

Lastly, here is a 1952 Bell System ad touting it as a good
place to work. While one didn't get rich working for the
telephone company, and the workplace was rather regimented,
it still was better than today's cutback mentality.

https://books.google.com/books?id=eFQEAAAAMBAJ&lpg=PA7&dq=employment%20%22bell%20telephone&pg=PA7#v=onepage&q&f=false
J. Clarke
2020-03-07 20:20:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by h***@bbs.cpcn.com
from the telecom newsgroup
AT&T is weighing a long list of plans to cut tens of billions of
dollars in costs that will likely result in even more dramatic job
losses for the connectivity and entertainment giant's employees. The
company previously said it plans to cut $1.5 billion in labor-related
costs this year.
https://www.sdxcentral.com/articles/news/att-puts-more-jobs-on-the-chopping-block/2020/03/
In addition to job cuts, the above article says there will be
wage and benefit cuts as well. Workers will end up doing more
work for less compensation.
Many workers these days are being hammered by lost benefits.
They must pay higher premiums for health care, yet receive
fewer benefits. If they get sick, the unremimbursed, out of
pocket and deductible costs are very substantial, costing
the worker many thousands of dollars.
In my opinion, that sucks. I believe companies, with their
record profits and tax cuts, can well afford to pay their
workers' health care.
Many companies reduced benefits and increased the worker's cost in
order to comply with the Affordable Care Act. Be careful what you
wish for. You may get it.
Post by h***@bbs.cpcn.com
The link below is to a 1947 Bell System advertisement
describing the trustee responsibility of company
management. Unlike today, where managers answer solely
to enriching the stockholders, in the past management
recognized it served customers and employees as well
as stockholders.
https://books.google.com/books?id=nlIEAAAAMBAJ&lpg=PA32&dq=life%20bell%20system%20employment&pg=PA32#v=onepage&q&f=false
Personally, I think about that when I get my Comcast bill.
They have increased their rates 10% while removing channels
from my lineup and reducing service quality. The company
is incredibly profitable.
Lastly, here is a 1952 Bell System ad touting it as a good
place to work. While one didn't get rich working for the
telephone company, and the workplace was rather regimented,
it still was better than today's cutback mentality.
https://books.google.com/books?id=eFQEAAAAMBAJ&lpg=PA7&dq=employment%20%22bell%20telephone&pg=PA7#v=onepage&q&f=false
Dan Espen
2020-03-07 21:02:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by J. Clarke
Post by h***@bbs.cpcn.com
from the telecom newsgroup
AT&T is weighing a long list of plans to cut tens of billions of
dollars in costs that will likely result in even more dramatic job
losses for the connectivity and entertainment giant's employees. The
company previously said it plans to cut $1.5 billion in labor-related
costs this year.
https://www.sdxcentral.com/articles/news/att-puts-more-jobs-on-the-chopping-block/2020/03/
In addition to job cuts, the above article says there will be
wage and benefit cuts as well. Workers will end up doing more
work for less compensation.
Many workers these days are being hammered by lost benefits.
They must pay higher premiums for health care, yet receive
fewer benefits. If they get sick, the unremimbursed, out of
pocket and deductible costs are very substantial, costing
the worker many thousands of dollars.
In my opinion, that sucks. I believe companies, with their
record profits and tax cuts, can well afford to pay their
workers' health care.
Many companies reduced benefits and increased the worker's cost in
order to comply with the Affordable Care Act. Be careful what you
wish for. You may get it.
My employer had one of those "Cadillac" plans.
Nothing ever changed...

Perhaps this is the reason:

The "Cadillac tax," an enacted but not yet implemented part of the
Affordable Care Act, is a 40% tax on the most generous
employer-provided health insurance plans — those that cost more than
$11,200 per year for an individual policy or $30,150 for family
coverage. The politics of health care are changing.

If you experienced reduced benefits, your employer either jumped the gun
or used the ACA as an excuse.
--
Dan Espen
J. Clarke
2020-03-07 21:11:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dan Espen
Post by J. Clarke
Post by h***@bbs.cpcn.com
from the telecom newsgroup
AT&T is weighing a long list of plans to cut tens of billions of
dollars in costs that will likely result in even more dramatic job
losses for the connectivity and entertainment giant's employees. The
company previously said it plans to cut $1.5 billion in labor-related
costs this year.
https://www.sdxcentral.com/articles/news/att-puts-more-jobs-on-the-chopping-block/2020/03/
In addition to job cuts, the above article says there will be
wage and benefit cuts as well. Workers will end up doing more
work for less compensation.
Many workers these days are being hammered by lost benefits.
They must pay higher premiums for health care, yet receive
fewer benefits. If they get sick, the unremimbursed, out of
pocket and deductible costs are very substantial, costing
the worker many thousands of dollars.
In my opinion, that sucks. I believe companies, with their
record profits and tax cuts, can well afford to pay their
workers' health care.
Many companies reduced benefits and increased the worker's cost in
order to comply with the Affordable Care Act. Be careful what you
wish for. You may get it.
My employer had one of those "Cadillac" plans.
Nothing ever changed...
The "Cadillac tax," an enacted but not yet implemented part of the
Affordable Care Act, is a 40% tax on the most generous
employer-provided health insurance plans — those that cost more than
$11,200 per year for an individual policy or $30,150 for family
coverage. The politics of health care are changing.
If you experienced reduced benefits, your employer either jumped the gun
or used the ACA as an excuse.
Oh, no question it was an excuse--the government told them what
benefits to provide and they did the bare minimum to comply with the
law, when previously they had exceeded it by a considerable margin.
John Levine
2020-03-07 21:35:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Dan Espen
If you experienced reduced benefits, your employer either jumped the gun
or used the ACA as an excuse.
Oh, no question it was an excuse--the government told them what
benefits to provide and they did the bare minimum to comply with the
law, when previously they had exceeded it by a considerable margin.
That sure sounds like they used it as an excuse. The ACA sets the
minimum, but any policy can offer more.

Also before the ACA a lot of states, notably California, allowed fake
insurance which looked like real insurance but had exclusions and
limits so that if you actually got sick, they wouldn't pay. The
current administration has changed the rules to allow some kinds of
fake insurance again, viz. the guy in Florida who was stuck with a $3K
bill for a COVID test that his insurance didn't cover.
--
Regards,
John Levine, ***@taugh.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies",
Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. https://jl.ly
Dan Espen
2020-03-07 23:40:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Levine
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Dan Espen
If you experienced reduced benefits, your employer either jumped the gun
or used the ACA as an excuse.
Oh, no question it was an excuse--the government told them what
benefits to provide and they did the bare minimum to comply with the
law, when previously they had exceeded it by a considerable margin.
That sure sounds like they used it as an excuse. The ACA sets the
minimum, but any policy can offer more.
Also before the ACA a lot of states, notably California, allowed fake
insurance which looked like real insurance but had exclusions and
limits so that if you actually got sick, they wouldn't pay. The
current administration has changed the rules to allow some kinds of
fake insurance again, viz. the guy in Florida who was stuck with a $3K
bill for a COVID test that his insurance didn't cover.
And that 3k charge is criminal.

Why criminal? Because it's robbery.

I recently had a few blood tests.
10 minutes for the draw, then 5 different analyses in the lab.

I got the bill, $1100 total charge. With no insurance, that's what I
would be billed. Try as I might, I would not get the 1000 dollar
insurance discount my insurer got. Insurance paid $97, my share $3.

Apparently, the lab can make a profit on the $100 they got paid.

The other $1000? It's criminal, robbery.
--
Dan Espen
J. Clarke
2020-03-07 23:49:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dan Espen
Post by John Levine
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Dan Espen
If you experienced reduced benefits, your employer either jumped the gun
or used the ACA as an excuse.
Oh, no question it was an excuse--the government told them what
benefits to provide and they did the bare minimum to comply with the
law, when previously they had exceeded it by a considerable margin.
That sure sounds like they used it as an excuse. The ACA sets the
minimum, but any policy can offer more.
Also before the ACA a lot of states, notably California, allowed fake
insurance which looked like real insurance but had exclusions and
limits so that if you actually got sick, they wouldn't pay. The
current administration has changed the rules to allow some kinds of
fake insurance again, viz. the guy in Florida who was stuck with a $3K
bill for a COVID test that his insurance didn't cover.
And that 3k charge is criminal.
Why criminal? Because it's robbery.
I recently had a few blood tests.
10 minutes for the draw, then 5 different analyses in the lab.
I got the bill, $1100 total charge. With no insurance, that's what I
would be billed. Try as I might, I would not get the 1000 dollar
insurance discount my insurer got. Insurance paid $97, my share $3.
Apparently, the lab can make a profit on the $100 they got paid.
The other $1000? It's criminal, robbery.
Just a note but here are the details on that $3200 charge:
<https://www.businessinsider.com/coronavirus-treatment-medical-bill-hospital-costs-2020-3>

Note that there is no charge for the actual COVID-19 test but that
doesn't mean that the blood draw is free.
Peter Flass
2020-03-08 20:30:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dan Espen
Post by John Levine
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Dan Espen
If you experienced reduced benefits, your employer either jumped the gun
or used the ACA as an excuse.
Oh, no question it was an excuse--the government told them what
benefits to provide and they did the bare minimum to comply with the
law, when previously they had exceeded it by a considerable margin.
That sure sounds like they used it as an excuse. The ACA sets the
minimum, but any policy can offer more.
Also before the ACA a lot of states, notably California, allowed fake
insurance which looked like real insurance but had exclusions and
limits so that if you actually got sick, they wouldn't pay. The
current administration has changed the rules to allow some kinds of
fake insurance again, viz. the guy in Florida who was stuck with a $3K
bill for a COVID test that his insurance didn't cover.
And that 3k charge is criminal.
Why criminal? Because it's robbery.
I recently had a few blood tests.
10 minutes for the draw, then 5 different analyses in the lab.
I got the bill, $1100 total charge. With no insurance, that's what I
would be billed. Try as I might, I would not get the 1000 dollar
insurance discount my insurer got. Insurance paid $97, my share $3.
Apparently, the lab can make a profit on the $100 they got paid.
The other $1000? It's criminal, robbery.
I agree. What needs to happen is that medical costs need to be reduced, and
then maybe we’d only need insurance for catastrophic situations. The
medical establishment has too much clout for anything to ever be done, so
the more insurance coverage people have the more they will charge.
--
Pete
Peter Flass
2020-03-08 20:30:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Levine
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Dan Espen
If you experienced reduced benefits, your employer either jumped the gun
or used the ACA as an excuse.
Oh, no question it was an excuse--the government told them what
benefits to provide and they did the bare minimum to comply with the
law, when previously they had exceeded it by a considerable margin.
That sure sounds like they used it as an excuse. The ACA sets the
minimum, but any policy can offer more.
Also before the ACA a lot of states, notably California, allowed fake
insurance which looked like real insurance but had exclusions and
limits so that if you actually got sick, they wouldn't pay. The
current administration has changed the rules to allow some kinds of
fake insurance again, viz. the guy in Florida who was stuck with a $3K
bill for a COVID test that his insurance didn't cover.
OTOH the ACA uses a one size fits all approach. For example, we haven’t
needed coverage for pregnancy or abortions for “a few” years, so a policy
that didn’t provide that might be cheaper. The system should allow for a
range of coverage instead if forcing everyone into the “minimum coverage”
that might have stuff you don’t want or need. That’s one of the two
problems I’ve always had with the ACA.
--
Pete
JimP
2020-03-08 20:48:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Levine
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Dan Espen
If you experienced reduced benefits, your employer either jumped the gun
or used the ACA as an excuse.
Oh, no question it was an excuse--the government told them what
benefits to provide and they did the bare minimum to comply with the
law, when previously they had exceeded it by a considerable margin.
That sure sounds like they used it as an excuse. The ACA sets the
minimum, but any policy can offer more.
Also before the ACA a lot of states, notably California, allowed fake
insurance which looked like real insurance but had exclusions and
limits so that if you actually got sick, they wouldn't pay. The
current administration has changed the rules to allow some kinds of
fake insurance again, viz. the guy in Florida who was stuck with a $3K
bill for a COVID test that his insurance didn't cover.
OTOH the ACA uses a one size fits all approach. For example, we haven’t
needed coverage for pregnancy or abortions for “a few” years, so a policy
that didn’t provide that might be cheaper. The system should allow for a
range of coverage instead if forcing everyone into the “minimum coverage”
that might have stuff you don’t want or need. That’s one of the two
problems I’ve always had with the ACA.
Thats spreading the cost around to all members of that health plan.
Many health plans do the same thing, they just may not mention it.
--
Jim
Peter Flass
2020-03-09 00:19:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by JimP
Post by John Levine
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Dan Espen
If you experienced reduced benefits, your employer either jumped the gun
or used the ACA as an excuse.
Oh, no question it was an excuse--the government told them what
benefits to provide and they did the bare minimum to comply with the
law, when previously they had exceeded it by a considerable margin.
That sure sounds like they used it as an excuse. The ACA sets the
minimum, but any policy can offer more.
Also before the ACA a lot of states, notably California, allowed fake
insurance which looked like real insurance but had exclusions and
limits so that if you actually got sick, they wouldn't pay. The
current administration has changed the rules to allow some kinds of
fake insurance again, viz. the guy in Florida who was stuck with a $3K
bill for a COVID test that his insurance didn't cover.
OTOH the ACA uses a one size fits all approach. For example, we haven’t
needed coverage for pregnancy or abortions for “a few” years, so a policy
that didn’t provide that might be cheaper. The system should allow for a
range of coverage instead if forcing everyone into the “minimum coverage”
that might have stuff you don’t want or need. That’s one of the two
problems I’ve always had with the ACA.
Thats spreading the cost around to all members of that health plan.
Many health plans do the same thing, they just may not mention it.
But if you don’t like your private health plan, assuming you’re interested
enough to look, you can always switch to another with different parameters.
--
Pete
J. Clarke
2020-03-09 00:59:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Flass
Post by JimP
Post by John Levine
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Dan Espen
If you experienced reduced benefits, your employer either jumped the gun
or used the ACA as an excuse.
Oh, no question it was an excuse--the government told them what
benefits to provide and they did the bare minimum to comply with the
law, when previously they had exceeded it by a considerable margin.
That sure sounds like they used it as an excuse. The ACA sets the
minimum, but any policy can offer more.
Also before the ACA a lot of states, notably California, allowed fake
insurance which looked like real insurance but had exclusions and
limits so that if you actually got sick, they wouldn't pay. The
current administration has changed the rules to allow some kinds of
fake insurance again, viz. the guy in Florida who was stuck with a $3K
bill for a COVID test that his insurance didn't cover.
OTOH the ACA uses a one size fits all approach. For example, we haven?t
needed coverage for pregnancy or abortions for ?a few? years, so a policy
that didn?t provide that might be cheaper. The system should allow for a
range of coverage instead if forcing everyone into the ?minimum coverage?
that might have stuff you don?t want or need. That?s one of the two
problems I?ve always had with the ACA.
Thats spreading the cost around to all members of that health plan.
Many health plans do the same thing, they just may not mention it.
But if you don’t like your private health plan, assuming you’re interested
enough to look, you can always switch to another with different parameters.
That's if I am paying for it. If it's employer-provided you take what
they give you.
Joe Pfeiffer
2020-03-09 01:53:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Peter Flass
But if you don’t like your private health plan, assuming you’re interested
enough to look, you can always switch to another with different parameters.
That's if I am paying for it. If it's employer-provided you take what
they give you.
And *that* is the problem with the American health care system in a
nutshell. If the actual consumer got to pick their health insurance it
would be a *lot* better.

It's far too late now, but I really wish that many decades ago a law had
been passed that the only way an employer could pay an employee was with
money. No benefits beyond that.
J. Clarke
2020-03-09 04:08:10 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 08 Mar 2020 19:53:35 -0600, Joe Pfeiffer
Post by Joe Pfeiffer
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Peter Flass
But if you don’t like your private health plan, assuming you’re interested
enough to look, you can always switch to another with different parameters.
That's if I am paying for it. If it's employer-provided you take what
they give you.
And *that* is the problem with the American health care system in a
nutshell. If the actual consumer got to pick their health insurance it
would be a *lot* better.
It's far too late now, but I really wish that many decades ago a law had
been passed that the only way an employer could pay an employee was with
money. No benefits beyond that.
The unions would have destroyed you.
h***@bbs.cpcn.com
2020-03-09 19:09:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Joe Pfeiffer
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Peter Flass
But if you don’t like your private health plan, assuming you’re interested
enough to look, you can always switch to another with different parameters.
That's if I am paying for it. If it's employer-provided you take what
they give you.
And *that* is the problem with the American health care system in a
nutshell. If the actual consumer got to pick their health insurance it
would be a *lot* better.
It's far too late now, but I really wish that many decades ago a law had
been passed that the only way an employer could pay an employee was with
money. No benefits beyond that.
One of the reasons we got employer provided benefits was that
it was far cheaper for an employer to provide them--through
a package group rate--than for an employee to buy them on
their own. Insurance, for instance, is a lot cheaper in
a group rate than individually.

A large corporation has the H/R staff (or used to) that could
make good decisions for a good benefit package.

This also applied to pensions. A large corporation likely already
had an investment unit for internal funds and could add on
pension investments, and do better than an individual could do
on their own.
John Levine
2020-03-08 23:20:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Levine
Also before the ACA a lot of states, notably California, allowed fake
insurance which looked like real insurance but had exclusions and
limits so that if you actually got sick, they wouldn't pay. ...
OTOH the ACA uses a one size fits all approach. For example, we haven’t
needed coverage for pregnancy or abortions for “a few” years, so a policy
that didn’t provide that might be cheaper. The system should allow for a
range of coverage instead if forcing everyone into the “minimum coverage”
that might have stuff you don’t want or need. ...
That's one of those ideas that seems superficially plausible but is in
fact a really bad idea. The administration and pricing is vastly
simpler if everyone is covered for the same things, and if the
insurance covers everything that can plausibly happen, even unlikely
stuff. Yeah, if you're a guy you can't get pregnant, but it's not
like women say "I volunteer to be a person whose medical care can be
more complicated and expensive."

Keep in mind that 20% of our medical dollars are skimmed off by
insurance companies, as opposed to like 3% in single payer countries
or Medicare. Complexity is expensive and in this case it doesn't pay.
--
Regards,
John Levine, ***@taugh.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies",
Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. https://jl.ly
h***@bbs.cpcn.com
2020-03-09 19:03:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Levine
That's one of those ideas that seems superficially plausible but is in
fact a really bad idea. The administration and pricing is vastly
simpler if everyone is covered for the same things, and if the
insurance covers everything that can plausibly happen, even unlikely
stuff. Yeah, if you're a guy you can't get pregnant, but it's not
like women say "I volunteer to be a person whose medical care can be
more complicated and expensive."
Keep in mind that 20% of our medical dollars are skimmed off by
insurance companies, as opposed to like 3% in single payer countries
or Medicare. Complexity is expensive and in this case it doesn't pay.
+1
Charlie Gibbs
2020-03-10 01:06:36 UTC
Permalink
In article
Post by Peter Flass
Post by John Levine
Also before the ACA a lot of states, notably California, allowed fake
insurance which looked like real insurance but had exclusions and
limits so that if you actually got sick, they wouldn't pay. ...
OTOH the ACA uses a one size fits all approach. For example, we haven’t
needed coverage for pregnancy or abortions for “a few” years, so a policy
that didn’t provide that might be cheaper. The system should allow for a
range of coverage instead if forcing everyone into the “minimum coverage”
that might have stuff you don’t want or need. ...
That's one of those ideas that seems superficially plausible but is in
fact a really bad idea. The administration and pricing is vastly
simpler if everyone is covered for the same things, and if the
insurance covers everything that can plausibly happen, even unlikely
stuff. Yeah, if you're a guy you can't get pregnant, but it's not
like women say "I volunteer to be a person whose medical care can be
more complicated and expensive."
That's sort of like how drive-through ATMs with Braille on them
initially seem silly, until you realize that a standardized
keyboard saves complexity and cost.
Keep in mind that 20% of our medical dollars are skimmed off by
insurance companies, as opposed to like 3% in single payer countries
or Medicare. Complexity is expensive and in this case it doesn't pay.
Complexity is a weapon. The KISS principle is a countermeasure.
--
/~\ Charlie Gibbs | Microsoft is a dictatorship.
\ / <***@kltpzyxm.invalid> | Apple is a cult.
X I'm really at ac.dekanfrus | Linux is anarchy.
/ \ if you read it the right way. | Pick your poison.
Dan Espen
2020-03-08 23:22:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Flass
Post by John Levine
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Dan Espen
If you experienced reduced benefits, your employer either jumped the gun
or used the ACA as an excuse.
Oh, no question it was an excuse--the government told them what
benefits to provide and they did the bare minimum to comply with the
law, when previously they had exceeded it by a considerable margin.
That sure sounds like they used it as an excuse. The ACA sets the
minimum, but any policy can offer more.
Also before the ACA a lot of states, notably California, allowed fake
insurance which looked like real insurance but had exclusions and
limits so that if you actually got sick, they wouldn't pay. The
current administration has changed the rules to allow some kinds of
fake insurance again, viz. the guy in Florida who was stuck with a $3K
bill for a COVID test that his insurance didn't cover.
OTOH the ACA uses a one size fits all approach. For example, we haven’t
needed coverage for pregnancy or abortions for “a few” years, so a policy
that didn’t provide that might be cheaper. The system should allow for a
range of coverage instead if forcing everyone into the “minimum coverage”
that might have stuff you don’t want or need. That’s one of the two
problems I’ve always had with the ACA.
Only women get those things, perhaps women should pay more.
That would be really popular...

Got to hide now.
--
Dan Espen
Peter Flass
2020-03-09 00:19:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dan Espen
Post by Peter Flass
Post by John Levine
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Dan Espen
If you experienced reduced benefits, your employer either jumped the gun
or used the ACA as an excuse.
Oh, no question it was an excuse--the government told them what
benefits to provide and they did the bare minimum to comply with the
law, when previously they had exceeded it by a considerable margin.
That sure sounds like they used it as an excuse. The ACA sets the
minimum, but any policy can offer more.
Also before the ACA a lot of states, notably California, allowed fake
insurance which looked like real insurance but had exclusions and
limits so that if you actually got sick, they wouldn't pay. The
current administration has changed the rules to allow some kinds of
fake insurance again, viz. the guy in Florida who was stuck with a $3K
bill for a COVID test that his insurance didn't cover.
OTOH the ACA uses a one size fits all approach. For example, we haven’t
needed coverage for pregnancy or abortions for “a few” years, so a policy
that didn’t provide that might be cheaper. The system should allow for a
range of coverage instead if forcing everyone into the “minimum coverage”
that might have stuff you don’t want or need. That’s one of the two
problems I’ve always had with the ACA.
Only women get those things, perhaps women should pay more.
That would be really popular...
Got to hide now.
Perhaps they should.(ducking). Besides pregnancy, women get several things
that men don’t. Likewise people with pre-existing conditions: Should they
be covered? Of course. Should they pay the same as people without? Doesn’t
seem fair.
--
Pete
John Levine
2020-03-09 02:05:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Flass
Perhaps they should.(ducking). Besides pregnancy, women get several things
that men don’t. Likewise people with pre-existing conditions: Should they
be covered? Of course. Should they pay the same as people without? Doesn’t
seem fair.
Fair to whom? As should be increasingly obvious with COVID-19
spreading across the country, there is a major social benefit to
covering everyone. If you're going to do that, it's a lot cheaper
overall to charge everyone the same price than pay clerks to try and
come up with individualized prices.
--
Regards,
John Levine, ***@taugh.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies",
Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. https://jl.ly
J. Clarke
2020-03-09 04:10:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Levine
Post by Peter Flass
Perhaps they should.(ducking). Besides pregnancy, women get several things
that men don’t. Likewise people with pre-existing conditions: Should they
be covered? Of course. Should they pay the same as people without? Doesn’t
seem fair.
Fair to whom? As should be increasingly obvious with COVID-19
spreading across the country, there is a major social benefit to
covering everyone. If you're going to do that, it's a lot cheaper
overall to charge everyone the same price than pay clerks to try and
come up with individualized prices.
Clerks? Who uses clerks? It's the third decade of the 21st
Century--computers make those calculations. It's called algorithmic
underwriting.
h***@bbs.cpcn.com
2020-03-09 19:11:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by J. Clarke
Clerks? Who uses clerks? It's the third decade of the 21st
Century--computers make those calculations. It's called algorithmic
underwriting.
Both doctors and insurance carriers employ armies of clerks
these days to administer health care costs.
Dave Garland
2020-03-09 06:35:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Levine
Post by Peter Flass
Perhaps they should.(ducking). Besides pregnancy, women get several things
that men don’t. Likewise people with pre-existing conditions: Should they
be covered? Of course. Should they pay the same as people without? Doesn’t
seem fair.
Fair to whom? As should be increasingly obvious with COVID-19
spreading across the country, there is a major social benefit to
covering everyone. If you're going to do that, it's a lot cheaper
overall to charge everyone the same price than pay clerks to try and
come up with individualized prices.
Oh come on. Men are at greater risk for COVID-19, so they obviously
should pay higher premiums.
Peter Flass
2020-03-09 18:53:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Levine
Post by Peter Flass
Perhaps they should.(ducking). Besides pregnancy, women get several things
that men don’t. Likewise people with pre-existing conditions: Should they
be covered? Of course. Should they pay the same as people without? Doesn’t
seem fair.
Fair to whom? As should be increasingly obvious with COVID-19
spreading across the country, there is a major social benefit to
covering everyone. If you're going to do that, it's a lot cheaper
overall to charge everyone the same price than pay clerks to try and
come up with individualized prices.
I thought this newsgroup had “computer” in the name. You probably wouldn’t
want everyone to have a different combination of benefits, but it should be
no more costly or complicated to have several tiers or standardized
packages of benefits. No clerks involved.
--
Pete
Scott Lurndal
2020-03-09 20:14:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Levine
Post by Peter Flass
Perhaps they should.(ducking). Besides pregnancy, women get several things
that men don’t. Likewise people with pre-existing conditions: Should they
be covered? Of course. Should they pay the same as people without? Doesn’t
seem fair.
Fair to whom? As should be increasingly obvious with COVID-19
spreading across the country, there is a major social benefit to
covering everyone. If you're going to do that, it's a lot cheaper
overall to charge everyone the same price than pay clerks to try and
come up with individualized prices.
I thought this newsgroup had “computer” in the name. You probably wouldn’t
want everyone to have a different combination of benefits, but it should be
no more costly or complicated to have several tiers or standardized
packages of benefits. No clerks involved.
You want simple, get rid of the private insurance companies who
1) Take 20-25% of your premium right off the top for profit and overhead
2) Make the paperwork so complicated a math major can't follow it.

The Canadians have it much better in all ways. Sure, you may have to wait
for non-essential surgeries (e.g. cosmetic), but who cares how quickly you
get your face lifted?
Peter Flass
2020-03-09 23:18:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Scott Lurndal
Post by Peter Flass
Post by John Levine
Post by Peter Flass
Perhaps they should.(ducking). Besides pregnancy, women get several things
that men don’t. Likewise people with pre-existing conditions: Should they
be covered? Of course. Should they pay the same as people without? Doesn’t
seem fair.
Fair to whom? As should be increasingly obvious with COVID-19
spreading across the country, there is a major social benefit to
covering everyone. If you're going to do that, it's a lot cheaper
overall to charge everyone the same price than pay clerks to try and
come up with individualized prices.
I thought this newsgroup had “computer” in the name. You probably wouldn’t
want everyone to have a different combination of benefits, but it should be
no more costly or complicated to have several tiers or standardized
packages of benefits. No clerks involved.
You want simple, get rid of the private insurance companies who
1) Take 20-25% of your premium right off the top for profit and overhead
2) Make the paperwork so complicated a math major can't follow it.
The Canadians have it much better in all ways. Sure, you may have to wait
for non-essential surgeries (e.g. cosmetic), but who cares how quickly you
get your face lifted?
Obviously the people who come to the US to get it done.
--
Pete
Scott Lurndal
2020-03-09 23:36:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Flass
Post by Scott Lurndal
Post by John Levine
Post by Peter Flass
Perhaps they should.(ducking). Besides pregnancy, women get several things
that men don’t. Likewise people with pre-existing conditions: Should they
be covered? Of course. Should they pay the same as people without? Doesn’t
seem fair.
Fair to whom? As should be increasingly obvious with COVID-19
spreading across the country, there is a major social benefit to
covering everyone. If you're going to do that, it's a lot cheaper
overall to charge everyone the same price than pay clerks to try and
come up with individualized prices.
I thought this newsgroup had “computer” in the name. You probably wouldn’t
want everyone to have a different combination of benefits, but it should be
no more costly or complicated to have several tiers or standardized
packages of benefits. No clerks involved.
You want simple, get rid of the private insurance companies who
1) Take 20-25% of your premium right off the top for profit and overhead
2) Make the paperwork so complicated a math major can't follow it.
The Canadians have it much better in all ways. Sure, you may have to wait
for non-essential surgeries (e.g. cosmetic), but who cares how quickly you
get your face lifted?
Obviously the people who come to the US to get it done.
What, all three of them?
Dan Espen
2020-03-10 03:50:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Flass
Post by Scott Lurndal
Post by Peter Flass
Post by John Levine
Post by Peter Flass
Perhaps they should.(ducking). Besides pregnancy, women get several things
that men don’t. Likewise people with pre-existing conditions: Should they
be covered? Of course. Should they pay the same as people without? Doesn’t
seem fair.
Fair to whom? As should be increasingly obvious with COVID-19
spreading across the country, there is a major social benefit to
covering everyone. If you're going to do that, it's a lot cheaper
overall to charge everyone the same price than pay clerks to try and
come up with individualized prices.
I thought this newsgroup had “computer” in the name. You probably wouldn’t
want everyone to have a different combination of benefits, but it should be
no more costly or complicated to have several tiers or standardized
packages of benefits. No clerks involved.
You want simple, get rid of the private insurance companies who
1) Take 20-25% of your premium right off the top for profit and overhead
2) Make the paperwork so complicated a math major can't follow it.
The Canadians have it much better in all ways. Sure, you may have to wait
for non-essential surgeries (e.g. cosmetic), but who cares how quickly you
get your face lifted?
Obviously the people who come to the US to get it done.
I wonder how many that actually is...

Looks like 5000 a year:

https://www.quora.com/How-many-Canadians-come-to-America-for-healthcare

One of those damn javascript infected sites where you click on "more"
to read the whole article. The article does seem informative. Here is
a tidbit:

On the whole, the Canadian system is both cheaper and more
effective. Medical outcomes are consistently higher in Canada than in
the US, except for cancer care, where the US tends to be among the
best in the world.
--
Dan Espen
Charlie Gibbs
2020-03-10 01:06:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Scott Lurndal
Post by Peter Flass
In article
Post by Peter Flass
Perhaps they should.(ducking). Besides pregnancy, women get several things
that men don’t. Likewise people with pre-existing conditions: Should they
be covered? Of course. Should they pay the same as people without? Doesn’t
seem fair.
Fair to whom? As should be increasingly obvious with COVID-19
spreading across the country, there is a major social benefit to
covering everyone. If you're going to do that, it's a lot cheaper
overall to charge everyone the same price than pay clerks to try and
come up with individualized prices.
I thought this newsgroup had “computer” in the name. You probably wouldn’t
want everyone to have a different combination of benefits, but it should be
no more costly or complicated to have several tiers or standardized
packages of benefits. No clerks involved.
You want simple, get rid of the private insurance companies who
1) Take 20-25% of your premium right off the top for profit and overhead
2) Make the paperwork so complicated a math major can't follow it.
The Canadians have it much better in all ways. Sure, you may have to wait
for non-essential surgeries (e.g. cosmetic), but who cares how quickly you
get your face lifted?
Still, it isn't all roses here in Canuckistan. Ask your typical federal
government employee who's still trying to get paid by that disaster
known as the Phoenix payroll system.
--
/~\ Charlie Gibbs | Microsoft is a dictatorship.
\ / <***@kltpzyxm.invalid> | Apple is a cult.
X I'm really at ac.dekanfrus | Linux is anarchy.
/ \ if you read it the right way. | Pick your poison.
Charlie Gibbs
2020-03-10 01:06:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Flass
Post by Dan Espen
Post by Peter Flass
OTOH the ACA uses a one size fits all approach. For example, we haven’t
needed coverage for pregnancy or abortions for “a few” years, so a policy
that didn’t provide that might be cheaper. The system should allow for a
range of coverage instead if forcing everyone into the “minimum coverage”
that might have stuff you don’t want or need. That’s one of the two
problems I’ve always had with the ACA.
Only women get those things, perhaps women should pay more.
That would be really popular...
Got to hide now.
Perhaps they should.(ducking). Besides pregnancy, women get several things
that men don’t. Likewise people with pre-existing conditions: Should they
be covered? Of course. Should they pay the same as people without? Doesn’t
seem fair.
Yeah, make woman pay more for that OB/GYN stuff. Meanwhile,
I'll accept my free prostate cancer treatments, thankyouverymuch.
--
/~\ Charlie Gibbs | Microsoft is a dictatorship.
\ / <***@kltpzyxm.invalid> | Apple is a cult.
X I'm really at ac.dekanfrus | Linux is anarchy.
/ \ if you read it the right way. | Pick your poison.
J. Clarke
2020-03-10 01:18:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Charlie Gibbs
Post by Peter Flass
Post by Dan Espen
Post by Peter Flass
OTOH the ACA uses a one size fits all approach. For example, we haven’t
needed coverage for pregnancy or abortions for “a few” years, so a policy
that didn’t provide that might be cheaper. The system should allow for a
range of coverage instead if forcing everyone into the “minimum coverage”
that might have stuff you don’t want or need. That’s one of the two
problems I’ve always had with the ACA.
Only women get those things, perhaps women should pay more.
That would be really popular...
Got to hide now.
Perhaps they should.(ducking). Besides pregnancy, women get several things
that men don’t. Likewise people with pre-existing conditions: Should they
be covered? Of course. Should they pay the same as people without? Doesn’t
seem fair.
Yeah, make woman pay more for that OB/GYN stuff. Meanwhile,
I'll accept my free prostate cancer treatments, thankyouverymuch.
Do you really need prostate cancer treatments? It has been described
as a cancer you die with, not of, and the treatment is often worse
than the disease.
John Levine
2020-03-10 01:52:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Charlie Gibbs
Yeah, make woman pay more for that OB/GYN stuff. Meanwhile,
I'll accept my free prostate cancer treatments, thankyouverymuch.
Do you really need prostate cancer treatments? It has been described
as a cancer you die with, not of, and the treatment is often worse
than the disease.
Depends how old you are when you get it. If you're 70, you can ignore
it. If you're 30, probably not.

Or change the example to testicular cancer. That really needs to be treated fast.
--
Regards,
John Levine, ***@taugh.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies",
Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. https://jl.ly
h***@bbs.cpcn.com
2020-03-10 18:14:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by J. Clarke
Do you really need prostate cancer treatments? It has been described
as a cancer you die with, not of, and the treatment is often worse
than the disease.
Tell that to actor Jerry Orbach, who died from prostate cancer.

Many do.

Each cancer has variants, some more deadlier than others.
Some are indeed slow growing, but some are nasty.
Charlie Gibbs
2020-03-10 18:38:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Charlie Gibbs
Post by Peter Flass
Post by Dan Espen
Post by Peter Flass
OTOH the ACA uses a one size fits all approach. For example, we haven’t
needed coverage for pregnancy or abortions for “a few” years, so a policy
that didn’t provide that might be cheaper. The system should allow for a
range of coverage instead if forcing everyone into the “minimum coverage”
that might have stuff you don’t want or need. That’s one of the two
problems I’ve always had with the ACA.
Only women get those things, perhaps women should pay more.
That would be really popular...
Got to hide now.
Perhaps they should.(ducking). Besides pregnancy, women get several things
that men don’t. Likewise people with pre-existing conditions: Should they
be covered? Of course. Should they pay the same as people without? Doesn’t
seem fair.
Yeah, make woman pay more for that OB/GYN stuff. Meanwhile,
I'll accept my free prostate cancer treatments, thankyouverymuch.
Do you really need prostate cancer treatments? It has been described
as a cancer you die with, not of, and the treatment is often worse
than the disease.
Depends on how aggressive it is. As for treatment, I caught it early
and took action. Being in otherwise good health helps a lot.
--
/~\ Charlie Gibbs | Microsoft is a dictatorship.
\ / <***@kltpzyxm.invalid> | Apple is a cult.
X I'm really at ac.dekanfrus | Linux is anarchy.
/ \ if you read it the right way. | Pick your poison.
Dan Espen
2020-03-10 04:02:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Flass
Post by Dan Espen
Post by Peter Flass
Post by John Levine
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Dan Espen
If you experienced reduced benefits, your employer either jumped the gun
or used the ACA as an excuse.
Oh, no question it was an excuse--the government told them what
benefits to provide and they did the bare minimum to comply with the
law, when previously they had exceeded it by a considerable margin.
That sure sounds like they used it as an excuse. The ACA sets the
minimum, but any policy can offer more.
Also before the ACA a lot of states, notably California, allowed fake
insurance which looked like real insurance but had exclusions and
limits so that if you actually got sick, they wouldn't pay. The
current administration has changed the rules to allow some kinds of
fake insurance again, viz. the guy in Florida who was stuck with a $3K
bill for a COVID test that his insurance didn't cover.
OTOH the ACA uses a one size fits all approach. For example, we haven’t
needed coverage for pregnancy or abortions for “a few” years, so a policy
that didn’t provide that might be cheaper. The system should allow for a
range of coverage instead if forcing everyone into the “minimum coverage”
that might have stuff you don’t want or need. That’s one of the two
problems I’ve always had with the ACA.
Only women get those things, perhaps women should pay more.
That would be really popular...
Got to hide now.
Perhaps they should.(ducking). Besides pregnancy, women get several things
that men don’t. Likewise people with pre-existing conditions: Should they
be covered? Of course. Should they pay the same as people without? Doesn’t
seem fair.
Duck you should.

Pregnancy and abortion, how do they work?

Last time I checked, it takes a woman AND a man.

Of course the man can't help himself so maybe he shouldn't have to pay
anything.
--
Dan Espen
J. Clarke
2020-03-10 11:16:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dan Espen
Post by Peter Flass
Post by Dan Espen
Post by Peter Flass
Post by John Levine
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Dan Espen
If you experienced reduced benefits, your employer either jumped the gun
or used the ACA as an excuse.
Oh, no question it was an excuse--the government told them what
benefits to provide and they did the bare minimum to comply with the
law, when previously they had exceeded it by a considerable margin.
That sure sounds like they used it as an excuse. The ACA sets the
minimum, but any policy can offer more.
Also before the ACA a lot of states, notably California, allowed fake
insurance which looked like real insurance but had exclusions and
limits so that if you actually got sick, they wouldn't pay. The
current administration has changed the rules to allow some kinds of
fake insurance again, viz. the guy in Florida who was stuck with a $3K
bill for a COVID test that his insurance didn't cover.
OTOH the ACA uses a one size fits all approach. For example, we haven’t
needed coverage for pregnancy or abortions for “a few” years, so a policy
that didn’t provide that might be cheaper. The system should allow for a
range of coverage instead if forcing everyone into the “minimum coverage”
that might have stuff you don’t want or need. That’s one of the two
problems I’ve always had with the ACA.
Only women get those things, perhaps women should pay more.
That would be really popular...
Got to hide now.
Perhaps they should.(ducking). Besides pregnancy, women get several things
that men don’t. Likewise people with pre-existing conditions: Should they
be covered? Of course. Should they pay the same as people without? Doesn’t
seem fair.
Duck you should.
Pregnancy and abortion, how do they work?
Last time I checked, it takes a woman AND a man.
But the man who is paying for the insurance might not be involved at
all in the pregnancy.
Post by Dan Espen
Of course the man can't help himself so maybe he shouldn't have to pay
anything.
Why should a gay man or a man who has had a vasectomy pay for
anybody's pregnancy?
Ahem A Rivet's Shot
2020-03-10 11:40:06 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 10 Mar 2020 07:16:06 -0400
Post by J. Clarke
Why should a gay man or a man who has had a vasectomy pay for
anybody's pregnancy?
Many (including me) consider it is desirable not to make the unborn
child suffer because of financial incompetence of the parent(s). For
similar reasons people without children pay for state provided education.
--
Steve O'Hara-Smith | Directable Mirror Arrays
C:\>WIN | A better way to focus the sun
The computer obeys and wins. | licences available see
You lose and Bill collects. | http://www.sohara.org/
Kerr-Mudd,John
2020-03-10 12:45:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ahem A Rivet's Shot
On Tue, 10 Mar 2020 07:16:06 -0400
Post by J. Clarke
Why should a gay man or a man who has had a vasectomy pay for
anybody's pregnancy?
Many (including me) consider it is desirable not to make the unborn
child suffer because of financial incompetence of the parent(s). For
similar reasons people without children pay for state provided
education.
and cyclists pay for roads (yes, they do use roads, but not use them up
as the nth(4?) power of axle weight).

(edit yes, 4th power)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gross_axle_weight_rating#Importance

obAUE why didn't Webster choose "axel" as a better spelling?
--
Bah, and indeed, Humbug.
Ahem A Rivet's Shot
2020-03-10 13:20:20 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 10 Mar 2020 12:45:03 -0000 (UTC)
Post by Ahem A Rivet's Shot
Post by Ahem A Rivet's Shot
On Tue, 10 Mar 2020 07:16:06 -0400
Post by J. Clarke
Why should a gay man or a man who has had a vasectomy pay for
anybody's pregnancy?
Many (including me) consider it is desirable not to make the
unborn
Post by Ahem A Rivet's Shot
child suffer because of financial incompetence of the parent(s). For
similar reasons people without children pay for state provided
education.
and cyclists pay for roads (yes, they do use roads, but not use them up
as the nth(4?) power of axle weight).
As do pedestrians and the big trucks don't pay huge taxes so as not
to put the cost of roads onto everything we buy.
--
Steve O'Hara-Smith | Directable Mirror Arrays
C:\>WIN | A better way to focus the sun
The computer obeys and wins. | licences available see
You lose and Bill collects. | http://www.sohara.org/
songbird
2020-03-10 16:57:27 UTC
Permalink
Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote:
...
Post by Ahem A Rivet's Shot
As do pedestrians and the big trucks don't pay huge taxes so as not
to put the cost of roads onto everything we buy.
which is yet another example of the poor decisions
that regulators make to appease some business instead
of putting the costs where they belong.

when you have an economic system that is supposed
to reward and penalize various segments based upon
facts and efficiency vs. some random ideas of regulators
it sure would help everyone to see where the damage
really is coming from and making sure the businesses
are actually paying their fair share of the expenses
instead of spreading it around.

i.e. yet another externalised expense (like carbon,
pollution from fertilizers and pesticides, etc.)...


songbird
Ahem A Rivet's Shot
2020-03-10 17:28:52 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 10 Mar 2020 12:57:27 -0400
Post by songbird
...
Post by Ahem A Rivet's Shot
As do pedestrians and the big trucks don't pay huge taxes so as
not to put the cost of roads onto everything we buy.
which is yet another example of the poor decisions
that regulators make to appease some business instead
of putting the costs where they belong.
Perhaps.
Post by songbird
the businesses
are actually paying their fair share of the expenses
instead of spreading it around.
Take a step back and look at where the haulage businesses would get
the money to pay the fourth power scaled road tax (they charge more for
hauling the goods, which means their customers charge more for the goods
or for the things they make with the goods and so it goes round) and realise
that it would be just another way of spreading it around (which is more
equitable is debatable but I'm not playing).

The benefit is not therefore in making the right people pay (the
end customers always pay for everything), but in making the accounting fit
the facts or perhaps making the money flow in a more comprehensible fashion,
which are perhaps good enough reasons but rather less emotive.
--
Steve O'Hara-Smith | Directable Mirror Arrays
C:\>WIN | A better way to focus the sun
The computer obeys and wins. | licences available see
You lose and Bill collects. | http://www.sohara.org/
h***@bbs.cpcn.com
2020-03-10 18:20:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by songbird
...
Post by Ahem A Rivet's Shot
As do pedestrians and the big trucks don't pay huge taxes so as not
to put the cost of roads onto everything we buy.
which is yet another example of the poor decisions
that regulators make to appease some business instead
of putting the costs where they belong.
when you have an economic system that is supposed
to reward and penalize various segments based upon
facts and efficiency vs. some random ideas of regulators
it sure would help everyone to see where the damage
really is coming from and making sure the businesses
are actually paying their fair share of the expenses
instead of spreading it around.
i.e. yet another externalised expense (like carbon,
pollution from fertilizers and pesticides, etc.)...
In college, the professor opened up the class on the
first day explaining not to look for logic in the
tax code. He emphasized the tax code was not written
by accountants, but rather by politicians.

Anyone who has ever dabbled in politics, at any level,
quickly learns it is like herding cats. Certain people
just have a lot of influence, even if they have
no competency, and others have no influence regardless
of their competency. Go figure, it's just the way it is.
Politics is the art of compromise.
Dan Espen
2020-03-10 16:16:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ahem A Rivet's Shot
Post by Ahem A Rivet's Shot
On Tue, 10 Mar 2020 07:16:06 -0400
Post by J. Clarke
Why should a gay man or a man who has had a vasectomy pay for
anybody's pregnancy?
Many (including me) consider it is desirable not to make the
unborn
Post by Ahem A Rivet's Shot
child suffer because of financial incompetence of the parent(s). For
similar reasons people without children pay for state provided
education.
and cyclists pay for roads (yes, they do use roads, but not use them up
as the nth(4?) power of axle weight).
(edit yes, 4th power)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gross_axle_weight_rating#Importance
obAUE why didn't Webster choose "axel" as a better spelling?
Applies to all the "le" ending words.
bungle, jiggle. Pretty sure there are hundreds of them.
--
Dan Espen
Andy Walker
2020-03-11 14:00:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dan Espen
Applies to all the "le" ending words.
bungle, jiggle. Pretty sure there are hundreds of them.
Yes:

$ grep 'le$' /usr/share/dict/words | wc -l
1352

That's far from the biggest dictionary around, at ~100K words.
OTOH, even leftpondians might not want words like "hoel" or
"Yuel" to replace the "-le" versions?
--
Andy Walker,
Nottingham.
Dan Espen
2020-03-11 15:36:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by Andy Walker
Post by Dan Espen
Applies to all the "le" ending words.
bungle, jiggle. Pretty sure there are hundreds of them.
$ grep 'le$' /usr/share/dict/words | wc -l
1352
That's far from the biggest dictionary around, at ~100K words.
OTOH, even leftpondians might not want words like "hoel" or
"Yuel" to replace the "-le" versions?
Only if we wanted spelling to make some kind of sense.
I've been brought up with this so don't really care.

I was looking at some Old English a while back, it seemed like they were
rolling dice coming up with letters to use at random. So I guess it
could be worse.
--
Dan Espen
Charlie Gibbs
2020-03-10 18:38:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Kerr-Mudd,John
obAUE why didn't Webster choose "axel" as a better spelling?
So they wouldn't have to pay royalties to Eddie Murphy?

<humming the Beverley Hills Cop theme...>
--
/~\ Charlie Gibbs | Microsoft is a dictatorship.
\ / <***@kltpzyxm.invalid> | Apple is a cult.
X I'm really at ac.dekanfrus | Linux is anarchy.
/ \ if you read it the right way. | Pick your poison.
h***@bbs.cpcn.com
2020-03-09 19:04:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dan Espen
Only women get those things, perhaps women should pay more.
That would be really popular...
While only women need certain treatments, there are other
treatments that only men need, like prostate. Also, some
health problems are more prevalent in men than women.
h***@bbs.cpcn.com
2020-03-09 19:01:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Levine
Also before the ACA a lot of states, notably California, allowed fake
insurance which looked like real insurance but had exclusions and
limits so that if you actually got sick, they wouldn't pay. The
current administration has changed the rules to allow some kinds of
fake insurance again, viz. the guy in Florida who was stuck with a $3K
bill for a COVID test that his insurance didn't cover.
ACA was a necessary improvement to a screwed up system.
But it had some limitations. Unfortunately, the Republicans
sought to repeal various important protections. Despite
their claims, there was no replacements. For the little
guy, health care premiums and personal costs* went up steeply.

*Out of pocket, unreimbursed, deductible, co-pays, and out of
network.

Sadly politicians on both sides of the aisle have failed
us. The biggest core problem is that health care costs
have climbed far faster than the rate of inflation**.

Republicans are stuck on their deregulation, free-market,
and pro-business mantra. They are totally oblivious to
the sufferings of the little guy. The free market has
failed. People in an ambulance aren't gonna price shop.
People don't have the ability to ascertain prices or
coverage rules in advance and get screwed.

Democrats are worried only about the very poor uninsured.
While this is important (Medicaid does need to be expanded
and improved), the rest of us have needs, too.


** Four years ago I paid $1,000 for a basic service.
Today the very same procedure cost $1,600. Why the
steep increase?

Some problems are obvious but no one wants to address them:

1) Heavy bureaucracy eating up substantial costs. Doctors
need to have massive armies of clerks to handle claims
and deal with insurance companies. Time is wasted.

2) Malpractice concerns--heavy premiums and 'defensive
medicine'; "CYA" health care.

3) Uneducated consumers demanding unreasonable care, such
as unnecessary antibiotics to fight a cold.

4) HIV and drug addiction are very expensive drains on the system.
Peter Flass
2020-03-07 21:19:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dan Espen
Post by J. Clarke
Post by h***@bbs.cpcn.com
from the telecom newsgroup
AT&T is weighing a long list of plans to cut tens of billions of
dollars in costs that will likely result in even more dramatic job
losses for the connectivity and entertainment giant's employees. The
company previously said it plans to cut $1.5 billion in labor-related
costs this year.
https://www.sdxcentral.com/articles/news/att-puts-more-jobs-on-the-chopping-block/2020/03/
In addition to job cuts, the above article says there will be
wage and benefit cuts as well. Workers will end up doing more
work for less compensation.
Many workers these days are being hammered by lost benefits.
They must pay higher premiums for health care, yet receive
fewer benefits. If they get sick, the unremimbursed, out of
pocket and deductible costs are very substantial, costing
the worker many thousands of dollars.
In my opinion, that sucks. I believe companies, with their
record profits and tax cuts, can well afford to pay their
workers' health care.
Many companies reduced benefits and increased the worker's cost in
order to comply with the Affordable Care Act. Be careful what you
wish for. You may get it.
My employer had one of those "Cadillac" plans.
Nothing ever changed...
The "Cadillac tax," an enacted but not yet implemented part of the
Affordable Care Act, is a 40% tax on the most generous
employer-provided health insurance plans — those that cost more than
$11,200 per year for an individual policy or $30,150 for family
coverage. The politics of health care are changing.
If you experienced reduced benefits, your employer either jumped the gun
or used the ACA as an excuse.
I know of people who got the shaft. The management had a “Cadillac” plan
and the rank-and-file less so. Some regulation, possibly part of the ACA,
said that employers had to offer the same benefits to everyone, so the
company dropped the better plan.
--
Pete
JimP
2020-03-07 21:34:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dan Espen
Post by J. Clarke
Post by h***@bbs.cpcn.com
from the telecom newsgroup
AT&T is weighing a long list of plans to cut tens of billions of
dollars in costs that will likely result in even more dramatic job
losses for the connectivity and entertainment giant's employees. The
company previously said it plans to cut $1.5 billion in labor-related
costs this year.
https://www.sdxcentral.com/articles/news/att-puts-more-jobs-on-the-chopping-block/2020/03/
In addition to job cuts, the above article says there will be
wage and benefit cuts as well. Workers will end up doing more
work for less compensation.
Many workers these days are being hammered by lost benefits.
They must pay higher premiums for health care, yet receive
fewer benefits. If they get sick, the unremimbursed, out of
pocket and deductible costs are very substantial, costing
the worker many thousands of dollars.
In my opinion, that sucks. I believe companies, with their
record profits and tax cuts, can well afford to pay their
workers' health care.
Many companies reduced benefits and increased the worker's cost in
order to comply with the Affordable Care Act. Be careful what you
wish for. You may get it.
My employer had one of those "Cadillac" plans.
Nothing ever changed...
The "Cadillac tax," an enacted but not yet implemented part of the
Affordable Care Act, is a 40% tax on the most generous
employer-provided health insurance plans — those that cost more than
$11,200 per year for an individual policy or $30,150 for family
coverage. The politics of health care are changing.
If you experienced reduced benefits, your employer either jumped the gun
or used the ACA as an excuse.
I know of people who got the shaft. The management had a “Cadillac” plan
and the rank-and-file less so. Some regulation, possibly part of the ACA,
said that employers had to offer the same benefits to everyone, so the
company dropped the better plan.
One place I worked the company managers got a very excellent health
plan. The rest of us got a lesser plan. However, the eye surgery, etc.
I needed was covered with no problems. But some employees said their
medical needs were not covered well. The company gave us a benefit of
partially paying for our medical coverage, listed as part of our
annual medical plan sign up. They claimed it was a benefit, along with
the free sodas and coffee in the coporate break room. We disagreed,
and apaprently someone else did to, no idea if it was the IRS or not,
and the following year it wasn't brought up.

I suggested that since I didn't drink any coffee, I should get a
reimbursement for this benefit they claim I used. That didn't go over
too well. I probably had no more than 2 or 3 sodas a week to.
--
Jim
Scott Lurndal
2020-03-08 22:44:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by J. Clarke
Post by h***@bbs.cpcn.com
from the telecom newsgroup
AT&T is weighing a long list of plans to cut tens of billions of
dollars in costs that will likely result in even more dramatic job
losses for the connectivity and entertainment giant's employees. The
company previously said it plans to cut $1.5 billion in labor-related
costs this year.
https://www.sdxcentral.com/articles/news/att-puts-more-jobs-on-the-chopping-block/2020/03/
In addition to job cuts, the above article says there will be
wage and benefit cuts as well. Workers will end up doing more
work for less compensation.
Many workers these days are being hammered by lost benefits.
They must pay higher premiums for health care, yet receive
fewer benefits. If they get sick, the unremimbursed, out of
pocket and deductible costs are very substantial, costing
the worker many thousands of dollars.
In my opinion, that sucks. I believe companies, with their
record profits and tax cuts, can well afford to pay their
workers' health care.
Many companies reduced benefits and increased the worker's cost in
order to comply with the Affordable Care Act. Be careful what you
wish for. You may get it.
Total nonsense. They were reducing benefits and increasing workers
costs for over a decade _before_ the PPACA. After PPACA, premium increases
were much less annually than before. That's direct experience buying
healthcare for a 50 person company.
Dan Espen
2020-03-08 23:51:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by Scott Lurndal
Post by J. Clarke
Post by h***@bbs.cpcn.com
from the telecom newsgroup
AT&T is weighing a long list of plans to cut tens of billions of
dollars in costs that will likely result in even more dramatic job
losses for the connectivity and entertainment giant's employees. The
company previously said it plans to cut $1.5 billion in labor-related
costs this year.
https://www.sdxcentral.com/articles/news/att-puts-more-jobs-on-the-chopping-block/2020/03/
In addition to job cuts, the above article says there will be
wage and benefit cuts as well. Workers will end up doing more
work for less compensation.
Many workers these days are being hammered by lost benefits.
They must pay higher premiums for health care, yet receive
fewer benefits. If they get sick, the unremimbursed, out of
pocket and deductible costs are very substantial, costing
the worker many thousands of dollars.
In my opinion, that sucks. I believe companies, with their
record profits and tax cuts, can well afford to pay their
workers' health care.
Many companies reduced benefits and increased the worker's cost in
order to comply with the Affordable Care Act. Be careful what you
wish for. You may get it.
Total nonsense. They were reducing benefits and increasing workers
costs for over a decade _before_ the PPACA. After PPACA, premium increases
were much less annually than before. That's direct experience buying
healthcare for a 50 person company.
Remember the phrase "job killing health coverage".
That was why the ACA was bad, it was going to kill jobs.

Obama should have followed up every jobs report he had with
a reminder about these jobs went up even with "job killing health coverage".

During the Kill Obamacare Fiasco, we heard over and over that Obamacare
is a "disaster". The only disaster type thing I can think of is they
repealed the medical device tax that helped pay for Obamacare.
But that was only a blip in the big disaster called the Largest Tax Cut
in History.
--
Dan Espen
Peter Flass
2020-03-09 00:19:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dan Espen
Post by Scott Lurndal
Post by J. Clarke
Post by h***@bbs.cpcn.com
from the telecom newsgroup
AT&T is weighing a long list of plans to cut tens of billions of
dollars in costs that will likely result in even more dramatic job
losses for the connectivity and entertainment giant's employees. The
company previously said it plans to cut $1.5 billion in labor-related
costs this year.
https://www.sdxcentral.com/articles/news/att-puts-more-jobs-on-the-chopping-block/2020/03/
In addition to job cuts, the above article says there will be
wage and benefit cuts as well. Workers will end up doing more
work for less compensation.
Many workers these days are being hammered by lost benefits.
They must pay higher premiums for health care, yet receive
fewer benefits. If they get sick, the unremimbursed, out of
pocket and deductible costs are very substantial, costing
the worker many thousands of dollars.
In my opinion, that sucks. I believe companies, with their
record profits and tax cuts, can well afford to pay their
workers' health care.
Many companies reduced benefits and increased the worker's cost in
order to comply with the Affordable Care Act. Be careful what you
wish for. You may get it.
Total nonsense. They were reducing benefits and increasing workers
costs for over a decade _before_ the PPACA. After PPACA, premium increases
were much less annually than before. That's direct experience buying
healthcare for a 50 person company.
Remember the phrase "job killing health coverage".
That was why the ACA was bad, it was going to kill jobs.
Obama should have followed up every jobs report he had with
a reminder about these jobs went up even with "job killing health coverage".
During the Kill Obamacare Fiasco, we heard over and over that Obamacare
is a "disaster". The only disaster type thing I can think of is they
repealed the medical device tax that helped pay for Obamacare.
But that was only a blip in the big disaster called the Largest Tax Cut
in History.
That”repeal” fiasco is one of the things that turned me off on Republicans
in Congress. They complained for YEARS, but when the time came they had
come up with nothing to replace it.
--
Pete
h***@bbs.cpcn.com
2020-03-09 19:06:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dan Espen
Post by Scott Lurndal
Post by J. Clarke
Post by h***@bbs.cpcn.com
from the telecom newsgroup
AT&T is weighing a long list of plans to cut tens of billions of
dollars in costs that will likely result in even more dramatic job
losses for the connectivity and entertainment giant's employees. The
company previously said it plans to cut $1.5 billion in labor-related
costs this year.
https://www.sdxcentral.com/articles/news/att-puts-more-jobs-on-the-chopping-block/2020/03/
In addition to job cuts, the above article says there will be
wage and benefit cuts as well. Workers will end up doing more
work for less compensation.
Many workers these days are being hammered by lost benefits.
They must pay higher premiums for health care, yet receive
fewer benefits. If they get sick, the unremimbursed, out of
pocket and deductible costs are very substantial, costing
the worker many thousands of dollars.
In my opinion, that sucks. I believe companies, with their
record profits and tax cuts, can well afford to pay their
workers' health care.
Many companies reduced benefits and increased the worker's cost in
order to comply with the Affordable Care Act. Be careful what you
wish for. You may get it.
Total nonsense. They were reducing benefits and increasing workers
costs for over a decade _before_ the PPACA. After PPACA, premium increases
were much less annually than before. That's direct experience buying
healthcare for a 50 person company.
Remember the phrase "job killing health coverage".
That was why the ACA was bad, it was going to kill jobs.
Obama should have followed up every jobs report he had with
a reminder about these jobs went up even with "job killing health coverage".
During the Kill Obamacare Fiasco, we heard over and over that Obamacare
is a "disaster". The only disaster type thing I can think of is they
repealed the medical device tax that helped pay for Obamacare.
But that was only a blip in the big disaster called the Largest Tax Cut
in History.
Sadly, the biggest problem with Obamacare was the name. Because
they hated Obama so damn much, anything associated with him
had to be condemned and destroyed, regardless of its actual
merits.

Sadly, to this day, they're still blaming Obama for current
problems.

I'm surprised they don't blame him for Pearl Harbor or Vietnam.
Heck, I bet one of the rabid MAGA supporters probably would.
Scott Lurndal
2020-03-09 20:17:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by h***@bbs.cpcn.com
Post by Dan Espen
Post by Scott Lurndal
Post by J. Clarke
Post by h***@bbs.cpcn.com
from the telecom newsgroup
AT&T is weighing a long list of plans to cut tens of billions of
dollars in costs that will likely result in even more dramatic job
losses for the connectivity and entertainment giant's employees. The
company previously said it plans to cut $1.5 billion in labor-related
costs this year.
https://www.sdxcentral.com/articles/news/att-puts-more-jobs-on-the-chopping-block/2020/03/
In addition to job cuts, the above article says there will be
wage and benefit cuts as well. Workers will end up doing more
work for less compensation.
Many workers these days are being hammered by lost benefits.
They must pay higher premiums for health care, yet receive
fewer benefits. If they get sick, the unremimbursed, out of
pocket and deductible costs are very substantial, costing
the worker many thousands of dollars.
In my opinion, that sucks. I believe companies, with their
record profits and tax cuts, can well afford to pay their
workers' health care.
Many companies reduced benefits and increased the worker's cost in
order to comply with the Affordable Care Act. Be careful what you
wish for. You may get it.
Total nonsense. They were reducing benefits and increasing workers
costs for over a decade _before_ the PPACA. After PPACA, premium increases
were much less annually than before. That's direct experience buying
healthcare for a 50 person company.
Remember the phrase "job killing health coverage".
That was why the ACA was bad, it was going to kill jobs.
Obama should have followed up every jobs report he had with
a reminder about these jobs went up even with "job killing health coverage".
During the Kill Obamacare Fiasco, we heard over and over that Obamacare
is a "disaster". The only disaster type thing I can think of is they
repealed the medical device tax that helped pay for Obamacare.
But that was only a blip in the big disaster called the Largest Tax Cut
in History.
Sadly, the biggest problem with Obamacare was the name. Because
they hated Obama so damn much, anything associated with him
had to be condemned and destroyed, regardless of its actual
merits.
It is the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. The
republicans coined the term "Obamacare" in order to pump up
their supporters.
Charlie Gibbs
2020-03-10 01:06:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Scott Lurndal
Post by h***@bbs.cpcn.com
Sadly, the biggest problem with Obamacare was the name. Because
they hated Obama so damn much, anything associated with him
had to be condemned and destroyed, regardless of its actual
merits.
It is the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. The
republicans coined the term "Obamacare" in order to pump up
their supporters.
This is particularly ironic given its similarities with Romneycare.
Mind you, Mitt Romney is probably now persona non grata among loyal
Repub^WTrump supporters.
--
/~\ Charlie Gibbs | Microsoft is a dictatorship.
\ / <***@kltpzyxm.invalid> | Apple is a cult.
X I'm really at ac.dekanfrus | Linux is anarchy.
/ \ if you read it the right way. | Pick your poison.
JimP
2020-03-10 13:41:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by Charlie Gibbs
Post by Scott Lurndal
Post by h***@bbs.cpcn.com
Sadly, the biggest problem with Obamacare was the name. Because
they hated Obama so damn much, anything associated with him
had to be condemned and destroyed, regardless of its actual
merits.
It is the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. The
republicans coined the term "Obamacare" in order to pump up
their supporters.
This is particularly ironic given its similarities with Romneycare.
Mind you, Mitt Romney is probably now persona non grata among loyal
Repub^WTrump supporters.
There were people at my last job who were absolutely certain
Romneycare was not where the ACA came from. Even though it is.
--
Jim
Dan Espen
2020-03-10 16:23:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by JimP
Post by Charlie Gibbs
Post by Scott Lurndal
Post by h***@bbs.cpcn.com
Sadly, the biggest problem with Obamacare was the name. Because
they hated Obama so damn much, anything associated with him
had to be condemned and destroyed, regardless of its actual
merits.
It is the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. The
republicans coined the term "Obamacare" in order to pump up
their supporters.
This is particularly ironic given its similarities with Romneycare.
Mind you, Mitt Romney is probably now persona non grata among loyal
Repub^WTrump supporters.
There were people at my last job who were absolutely certain
Romneycare was not where the ACA came from. Even though it is.
Like I once spent time trying to convince one of the thick headed that
Muslims pray to the god of Abraham. He absolutely refused to admit that
Jews, Christians, and Muslims are all praying to the same god.
I had all these facts to back this up, but they just bounced off.

It must be sort of nice to be able to deny what is glaringly apparent.
Just don't let in any thoughts contrary to your beliefs.

Not clear to me how to steer this back to computers.
Well, I had more than one thick headed boss.
--
Dan Espen
Ahem A Rivet's Shot
2020-03-10 17:18:55 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 10 Mar 2020 12:23:34 -0400
Post by Dan Espen
Not clear to me how to steer this back to computers.
How long would it take to generate and print the nine billion names
today ?
--
Steve O'Hara-Smith | Directable Mirror Arrays
C:\>WIN | A better way to focus the sun
The computer obeys and wins. | licences available see
You lose and Bill collects. | http://www.sohara.org/
Charlie Gibbs
2020-03-10 18:38:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ahem A Rivet's Shot
On Tue, 10 Mar 2020 12:23:34 -0400
Post by Dan Espen
Not clear to me how to steer this back to computers.
How long would it take to generate and print the nine billion names
today ?
Probably abou

NO CARRIER
David Lesher
2020-04-04 21:02:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ahem A Rivet's Shot
On Tue, 10 Mar 2020 12:23:34 -0400
Post by Dan Espen
Not clear to me how to steer this back to computers.
How long would it take to generate and print the nine billion names
today ?
Well, not until your check clears...
--
A host is a host from coast to ***@nrk.com
& no one will talk to a host that's close..........................
Unless the host (that isn't close).........................pob 1433
is busy, hung or dead....................................20915-1433
John Levine
2020-04-04 21:50:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Lesher
Post by Ahem A Rivet's Shot
How long would it take to generate and print the nine billion names
today ?
Well, not until your check clears...
Hey, it was a real question. High end printers print about 300 PPM,
so lets assume 80 lines per page, two colum, so that rounds to 50,000
names per minute. Divide that into 9 billion and you get 180,000
hours. or 3000 days. Assume we have ten printers running and that's a
reasonable 300 days, well under a year. Those printers can be attached
to binding machines so we get a stack of neatly printed and bound books.

What are we waiting for?
--
Regards,
John Levine, ***@taugh.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies",
Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. https://jl.ly
danny burstein
2020-04-04 22:07:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Levine
Post by David Lesher
Post by Ahem A Rivet's Shot
How long would it take to generate and print the nine billion names
today ?
Well, not until your check clears...
Hey, it was a real question. High end printers print about 300 PPM,
so lets assume 80 lines per page, two colum, so that rounds to 50,000
names per minute. Divide that into 9 billion and you get 180,000
hours. or 3000 days. Assume we have ten printers running and that's a
reasonable 300 days, well under a year. Those printers can be attached
to binding machines so we get a stack of neatly printed and bound books.
What are we waiting for?
Sounds like someone needs to build a couple of websites
akin to:

http://hasthelargehadroncolliderdestroyedtheworldyet.com/
--
_____________________________________________________
Knowledge may be power, but communications is the key
***@panix.com
[to foil spammers, my address has been double rot-13 encoded]
Bob Martin
2020-04-05 06:30:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Levine
Post by David Lesher
Post by Ahem A Rivet's Shot
How long would it take to generate and print the nine billion names
today ?
Well, not until your check clears...
Hey, it was a real question. High end printers print about 300 PPM,
so lets assume 80 lines per page, two colum, so that rounds to 50,000
names per minute. Divide that into 9 billion and you get 180,000
hours. or 3000 days. Assume we have ten printers running and that's a
reasonable 300 days, well under a year. Those printers can be attached
to binding machines so we get a stack of neatly printed and bound books.
What are we waiting for?
You are not allowing for a new box of paper every few minutes.
That can take forever.
J. Clarke
2020-04-05 14:50:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bob Martin
Post by John Levine
Post by David Lesher
Post by Ahem A Rivet's Shot
How long would it take to generate and print the nine billion names
today ?
Well, not until your check clears...
Hey, it was a real question. High end printers print about 300 PPM,
so lets assume 80 lines per page, two colum, so that rounds to 50,000
names per minute. Divide that into 9 billion and you get 180,000
hours. or 3000 days. Assume we have ten printers running and that's a
reasonable 300 days, well under a year. Those printers can be attached
to binding machines so we get a stack of neatly printed and bound books.
What are we waiting for?
You are not allowing for a new box of paper every few minutes.
That can take forever.
"a new box"? A real high speed printer holds 3 or 4 boxes at a time
and doesn't have to be shut down to refill.
David Lesher
2020-04-06 04:04:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Bob Martin
Post by John Levine
Post by David Lesher
Post by Ahem A Rivet's Shot
How long would it take to generate and print the nine billion names
today ?
Well, not until your check clears...
Hey, it was a real question. High end printers print about 300 PPM,
so lets assume 80 lines per page, two colum, so that rounds to 50,000
names per minute. Divide that into 9 billion and you get 180,000
hours. or 3000 days. Assume we have ten printers running and that's a
reasonable 300 days, well under a year. Those printers can be attached
to binding machines so we get a stack of neatly printed and bound books.
What are we waiting for?
You are not allowing for a new box of paper every few minutes.
That can take forever.
"a new box"? A real high speed printer holds 3 or 4 boxes at a time
and doesn't have to be shut down to refill.
We had a IBM 3800 printer at NASA-LeRC. I once calculated
it to be going 2.3 MPH. We called it "The Forest Eater"...

You had to let the paper condition in a low humidity room for
a few days before use.
--
A host is a host from coast to ***@nrk.com
& no one will talk to a host that's close..........................
Unless the host (that isn't close).........................pob 1433
is busy, hung or dead....................................20915-1433
Peter Flass
2020-04-05 19:04:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bob Martin
Post by John Levine
Post by David Lesher
Post by Ahem A Rivet's Shot
How long would it take to generate and print the nine billion names
today ?
Well, not until your check clears...
Hey, it was a real question. High end printers print about 300 PPM,
so lets assume 80 lines per page, two colum, so that rounds to 50,000
names per minute. Divide that into 9 billion and you get 180,000
hours. or 3000 days. Assume we have ten printers running and that's a
reasonable 300 days, well under a year. Those printers can be attached
to binding machines so we get a stack of neatly printed and bound books.
What are we waiting for?
You are not allowing for a new box of paper every few minutes.
That can take forever.
Operators got pretty quick with the change. The Xerox 9700, etc. used
cut-sheet, and had multiple input hoppers and output stackers, so when one
hopper emptied it switched to the other and notified the operator to add
paper. Same with one stacker filling up.The printer could run continuously
gor long periods of time.
--
Pete
Dan Espen
2020-04-05 20:12:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Flass
Post by Bob Martin
Post by John Levine
Post by David Lesher
Post by Ahem A Rivet's Shot
How long would it take to generate and print the nine billion names
today ?
Well, not until your check clears...
Hey, it was a real question. High end printers print about 300 PPM,
so lets assume 80 lines per page, two colum, so that rounds to 50,000
names per minute. Divide that into 9 billion and you get 180,000
hours. or 3000 days. Assume we have ten printers running and that's a
reasonable 300 days, well under a year. Those printers can be attached
to binding machines so we get a stack of neatly printed and bound books.
What are we waiting for?
You are not allowing for a new box of paper every few minutes.
That can take forever.
Operators got pretty quick with the change. The Xerox 9700, etc. used
cut-sheet, and had multiple input hoppers and output stackers, so when one
hopper emptied it switched to the other and notified the operator to add
paper. Same with one stacker filling up.The printer could run continuously
gor long periods of time.
I did some work at a direct mail outfit.
This was so long ago they were using 1403N1s.
The operators would join the bottom paper in one box to the top paper in
the next box. No delays for running out of paper allowed.
--
Dan Espen
John Levine
2020-04-05 20:42:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bob Martin
You are not allowing for a new box of paper every few minutes.
That can take forever.
The printers I'm looking at have three feed modules, each of which can
hold 5000 sheets. Or there's an adapter that feeds from a large
50,000 sheet roll of paper which at 300 ppm takes 2 1/2 hours to
print. This is a solved problem.

What are we waiting for?
--
Regards,
John Levine, ***@taugh.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies",
Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. https://jl.ly
Ahem A Rivet's Shot
2020-04-05 21:24:42 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 5 Apr 2020 20:42:57 -0000 (UTC)
Post by John Levine
Post by Bob Martin
You are not allowing for a new box of paper every few minutes.
That can take forever.
The printers I'm looking at have three feed modules, each of which can
hold 5000 sheets. Or there's an adapter that feeds from a large
Hmm so with ten 300ppm printers that's 3000 sheets a minute so
every 100 seconds another 5000 sheets needs to be loaded into a hopper to
keep it going. That sounds doable with two people per shift (covering each
other's breaks).
Post by John Levine
50,000 sheet roll of paper which at 300 ppm takes 2 1/2 hours to
print.
How long to load a new roll ? It seems the feed modules allow
non-stop operation at the cost of keeping the operators pretty well
exercised.
--
Steve O'Hara-Smith | Directable Mirror Arrays
C:\>WIN | A better way to focus the sun
The computer obeys and wins. | licences available see
You lose and Bill collects. | http://www.sohara.org/
John Levine
2020-04-06 01:17:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ahem A Rivet's Shot
Post by John Levine
The printers I'm looking at have three feed modules, each of which can
hold 5000 sheets. Or there's an adapter that feeds from a large
Hmm so with ten 300ppm printers that's 3000 sheets a minute so
every 100 seconds another 5000 sheets needs to be loaded into a hopper to
keep it going. That sounds doable with two people per shift (covering each
other's breaks).
Post by John Levine
50,000 sheet roll of paper which at 300 ppm takes 2 1/2 hours to
print.
How long to load a new roll ? It seems the feed modules allow
non-stop operation at the cost of keeping the operators pretty well
exercised.
Dunno, looks like a few minutes to install the new roll and thread it
into the feeder. A roll is 40" in diameter and weighs 600 lbs so I
presume you need something like a small fork lift to move them around.
I'd think that if you had a bunch of printers, the operators would
stage rolls to be ready to switch when needed.

I get the impression that paper is considerably cheaper in rolls, too.
--
Regards,
John Levine, ***@taugh.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies",
Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. https://jl.ly
J. Clarke
2020-04-06 01:58:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Levine
Post by Ahem A Rivet's Shot
Post by John Levine
The printers I'm looking at have three feed modules, each of which can
hold 5000 sheets. Or there's an adapter that feeds from a large
Hmm so with ten 300ppm printers that's 3000 sheets a minute so
every 100 seconds another 5000 sheets needs to be loaded into a hopper to
keep it going. That sounds doable with two people per shift (covering each
other's breaks).
Post by John Levine
50,000 sheet roll of paper which at 300 ppm takes 2 1/2 hours to
print.
How long to load a new roll ? It seems the feed modules allow
non-stop operation at the cost of keeping the operators pretty well
exercised.
Dunno, looks like a few minutes to install the new roll and thread it
into the feeder. A roll is 40" in diameter and weighs 600 lbs so I
presume you need something like a small fork lift to move them around.
I'd think that if you had a bunch of printers, the operators would
stage rolls to be ready to switch when needed.
I get the impression that paper is considerably cheaper in rolls, too.
This is another solved problem. Google "flying splicer" and
"zero-speed splicer". You think newspapers stopped the presses when a
roll ran out?
Charlie Gibbs
2020-04-06 17:42:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by J. Clarke
Post by John Levine
Post by Ahem A Rivet's Shot
Post by John Levine
The printers I'm looking at have three feed modules, each of which can
hold 5000 sheets. Or there's an adapter that feeds from a large
Hmm so with ten 300ppm printers that's 3000 sheets a minute so
every 100 seconds another 5000 sheets needs to be loaded into a hopper to
keep it going. That sounds doable with two people per shift (covering each
other's breaks).
Post by John Levine
50,000 sheet roll of paper which at 300 ppm takes 2 1/2 hours to
print.
How long to load a new roll ? It seems the feed modules allow
non-stop operation at the cost of keeping the operators pretty well
exercised.
Dunno, looks like a few minutes to install the new roll and thread it
into the feeder. A roll is 40" in diameter and weighs 600 lbs so I
presume you need something like a small fork lift to move them around.
I'd think that if you had a bunch of printers, the operators would
stage rolls to be ready to switch when needed.
I get the impression that paper is considerably cheaper in rolls, too.
This is another solved problem. Google "flying splicer" and
"zero-speed splicer". You think newspapers stopped the presses when a
roll ran out?
Thank you for a pleasant half-hour of YouTubing. :-)
--
/~\ Charlie Gibbs | Microsoft is a dictatorship.
\ / <***@kltpzyxm.invalid> | Apple is a cult.
X I'm really at ac.dekanfrus | Linux is anarchy.
/ \ if you read it the right way. | Pick your poison.
Thomas Koenig
2020-04-12 15:27:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ahem A Rivet's Shot
Hmm so with ten 300ppm printers that's 3000 sheets a minute so
every 100 seconds another 5000 sheets needs to be loaded into a hopper to
keep it going. That sounds doable with two people per shift (covering each
other's breaks).
It that's A4 sheets at 80 g/m^2, you are talking about 900 kg/h.

That is _A LOT_ for manual handling.
J. Clarke
2020-04-12 15:36:49 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 12 Apr 2020 15:27:06 -0000 (UTC), Thomas Koenig
Post by Thomas Koenig
Post by Ahem A Rivet's Shot
Hmm so with ten 300ppm printers that's 3000 sheets a minute so
every 100 seconds another 5000 sheets needs to be loaded into a hopper to
keep it going. That sounds doable with two people per shift (covering each
other's breaks).
It that's A4 sheets at 80 g/m^2, you are talking about 900 kg/h.
That is _A LOT_ for manual handling.
I think you'd need a larger crew. You need somebody to make sure that
ten boxes are always close enough that the loaders don't lose time
walking to the location of the box. And probably somebody to discard
the empties as well.
Gareth Evans
2020-04-12 16:12:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by J. Clarke
On Sun, 12 Apr 2020 15:27:06 -0000 (UTC), Thomas Koenig
Post by Thomas Koenig
Post by Ahem A Rivet's Shot
Hmm so with ten 300ppm printers that's 3000 sheets a minute so
every 100 seconds another 5000 sheets needs to be loaded into a hopper to
keep it going. That sounds doable with two people per shift (covering each
other's breaks).
It that's A4 sheets at 80 g/m^2, you are talking about 900 kg/h.
That is _A LOT_ for manual handling.
I think you'd need a larger crew. You need somebody to make sure that
ten boxes are always close enough that the loaders don't lose time
walking to the location of the box.
... and thereby hangs a tale.

50+ years ago I had a vacation job working in Hales' cake
factory in Clevedon, Somerset (as was) and one day I was
assigned to fill the hopper that created the belt of
marzipan used to provide the wrappings of Battenburg
cakes.

Now, I'd have a gurney filled with giant balls of marzipan
about 1 foot in diameter and I'd to climb the ladder
to put them in the top of the hopper.

The problem arose when I ran out of the balls of marzipan
and I had to trundle the gurney across half the factory to
replenish it from the machine that made the marzipan, but
this could take so long that when I got back to the
Battenburg line, there were great holes in the belt of
marzipan so the production line had to stop until
it was corrected.

I did two vacations in that factory and it could be
the most boring work possible especially if you were standing
over the vibrating belt that dealt with the dried fruit
for the Farmer's Friut Cake, the idea being that the vibration
would make stones jump up into the air where you had to catch
them to be discarded.

The second year I was there, my younger brother had been
to Germany with his school and they had all contracted
gastro enteritis and so I was removed from the cake factory
by the public health department who then paid my wages,
all £10 per week of it.

How is this relevant? Well what would have been the 3rd
summer at the cake factory I got the internship that
introduced me to the joys of blinkenlights on a PDP11/20.
danny burstein
2020-04-12 21:31:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by J. Clarke
On Sun, 12 Apr 2020 15:27:06 -0000 (UTC), Thomas Koenig
Post by Thomas Koenig
Post by Ahem A Rivet's Shot
Hmm so with ten 300ppm printers that's 3000 sheets a minute so
every 100 seconds another 5000 sheets needs to be loaded into a hopper to
keep it going. That sounds doable with two people per shift (covering each
other's breaks).
It that's A4 sheets at 80 g/m^2, you are talking about 900 kg/h.
That is _A LOT_ for manual handling.
I think you'd need a larger crew. You need somebody to make sure that
ten boxes are always close enough that the loaders don't lose time
walking to the location of the box. And probably somebody to discard
the empties as well.
And if you're talking newspaper level presses, at least in
the US in those decades (today, not so much...) you're
talking a heavily unionized workforce.

So, err, you can triple those number...
--
_____________________________________________________
Knowledge may be power, but communications is the key
***@panix.com
[to foil spammers, my address has been double rot-13 encoded]
J. Clarke
2020-04-13 01:52:42 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 12 Apr 2020 21:31:09 +0000 (UTC), danny burstein
Post by danny burstein
Post by J. Clarke
On Sun, 12 Apr 2020 15:27:06 -0000 (UTC), Thomas Koenig
Post by Thomas Koenig
Post by Ahem A Rivet's Shot
Hmm so with ten 300ppm printers that's 3000 sheets a minute so
every 100 seconds another 5000 sheets needs to be loaded into a hopper to
keep it going. That sounds doable with two people per shift (covering each
other's breaks).
It that's A4 sheets at 80 g/m^2, you are talking about 900 kg/h.
That is _A LOT_ for manual handling.
I think you'd need a larger crew. You need somebody to make sure that
ten boxes are always close enough that the loaders don't lose time
walking to the location of the box. And probably somebody to discard
the empties as well.
And if you're talking newspaper level presses, at least in
the US in those decades (today, not so much...) you're
talking a heavily unionized workforce.
So, err, you can triple those number...
A "newspaper level press" would be a web press that uses rolls that
have to be transported on a truck, not boxes of A4 paper. Those were
big, heavy machines--I'm told that you could tell when the presses
started everywhere in the building from the way the building started
shaking. Nobody has made an electronic equivalent of a web press that
I've been able to find.

r***@gmail.com
2020-04-13 01:01:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by J. Clarke
On Sun, 12 Apr 2020 15:27:06 -0000 (UTC), Thomas Koenig
Post by Thomas Koenig
Post by Ahem A Rivet's Shot
Hmm so with ten 300ppm printers that's 3000 sheets a minute so
every 100 seconds another 5000 sheets needs to be loaded into a hopper to
keep it going. That sounds doable with two people per shift (covering each
other's breaks).
It that's A4 sheets at 80 g/m^2, you are talking about 900 kg/h.
That is _A LOT_ for manual handling.
I think you'd need a larger crew. You need somebody to make sure that
ten boxes are always close enough that the loaders don't lose time
walking to the location of the box. And probably somebody to discard
the empties as well.
You'd need the empties to stack the printed results.
Ahem A Rivet's Shot
2020-04-05 21:11:09 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 5 Apr 2020 20:42:57 -0000 (UTC)
Post by John Levine
Post by Bob Martin
You are not allowing for a new box of paper every few minutes.
That can take forever.
The printers I'm looking at have three feed modules, each of which can
hold 5000 sheets. Or there's an adapter that feeds from a large
50,000 sheet roll of paper which at 300 ppm takes 2 1/2 hours to
print. This is a solved problem.
What are we waiting for?
Management approval and budget.
--
Steve O'Hara-Smith | Directable Mirror Arrays
C:\>WIN | A better way to focus the sun
The computer obeys and wins. | licences available see
You lose and Bill collects. | http://www.sohara.org/
Kerr-Mudd,John
2020-04-06 10:39:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ahem A Rivet's Shot
On Sun, 5 Apr 2020 20:42:57 -0000 (UTC)
Post by John Levine
Post by Bob Martin
You are not allowing for a new box of paper every few minutes.
That can take forever.
The printers I'm looking at have three feed modules, each of which can
hold 5000 sheets. Or there's an adapter that feeds from a large
50,000 sheet roll of paper which at 300 ppm takes 2 1/2 hours to
print. This is a solved problem.
What are we waiting for?
Management approval and budget.
Are we going to put it out to at least 3 competitive tenders?
--
Bah, and indeed, Humbug.
Charlie Gibbs
2020-04-06 17:42:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by Kerr-Mudd,John
Post by Ahem A Rivet's Shot
On Sun, 5 Apr 2020 20:42:57 -0000 (UTC)
Post by John Levine
Post by Bob Martin
You are not allowing for a new box of paper every few minutes.
That can take forever.
The printers I'm looking at have three feed modules, each of which can
hold 5000 sheets. Or there's an adapter that feeds from a large
50,000 sheet roll of paper which at 300 ppm takes 2 1/2 hours to
print. This is a solved problem.
What are we waiting for?
Management approval and budget.
Are we going to put it out to at least 3 competitive tenders?
There are only two tenders; therefore the project cannot proceed.
--
/~\ Charlie Gibbs | Microsoft is a dictatorship.
\ / <***@kltpzyxm.invalid> | Apple is a cult.
X I'm really at ac.dekanfrus | Linux is anarchy.
/ \ if you read it the right way. | Pick your poison.
h***@bbs.cpcn.com
2020-03-10 18:12:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by Scott Lurndal
Post by h***@bbs.cpcn.com
Post by Dan Espen
Post by Scott Lurndal
Post by J. Clarke
Post by h***@bbs.cpcn.com
from the telecom newsgroup
AT&T is weighing a long list of plans to cut tens of billions of
dollars in costs that will likely result in even more dramatic job
losses for the connectivity and entertainment giant's employees. The
company previously said it plans to cut $1.5 billion in labor-related
costs this year.
https://www.sdxcentral.com/articles/news/att-puts-more-jobs-on-the-chopping-block/2020/03/
In addition to job cuts, the above article says there will be
wage and benefit cuts as well. Workers will end up doing more
work for less compensation.
Many workers these days are being hammered by lost benefits.
They must pay higher premiums for health care, yet receive
fewer benefits. If they get sick, the unremimbursed, out of
pocket and deductible costs are very substantial, costing
the worker many thousands of dollars.
In my opinion, that sucks. I believe companies, with their
record profits and tax cuts, can well afford to pay their
workers' health care.
Many companies reduced benefits and increased the worker's cost in
order to comply with the Affordable Care Act. Be careful what you
wish for. You may get it.
Total nonsense. They were reducing benefits and increasing workers
costs for over a decade _before_ the PPACA. After PPACA, premium increases
were much less annually than before. That's direct experience buying
healthcare for a 50 person company.
Remember the phrase "job killing health coverage".
That was why the ACA was bad, it was going to kill jobs.
Obama should have followed up every jobs report he had with
a reminder about these jobs went up even with "job killing health coverage".
During the Kill Obamacare Fiasco, we heard over and over that Obamacare
is a "disaster". The only disaster type thing I can think of is they
repealed the medical device tax that helped pay for Obamacare.
But that was only a blip in the big disaster called the Largest Tax Cut
in History.
Sadly, the biggest problem with Obamacare was the name. Because
they hated Obama so damn much, anything associated with him
had to be condemned and destroyed, regardless of its actual
merits.
It is the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. The
republicans coined the term "Obamacare" in order to pump up
their supporters.
Yes. And in surveys, the same people who were very hostile
to "Obamacare" liked "ACA", depending on what name they
were given. Many folks didn't know Obamacare and ACA were
the same thing.
JimP
2020-03-10 13:36:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by h***@bbs.cpcn.com
Post by Dan Espen
Post by Scott Lurndal
Post by J. Clarke
Post by h***@bbs.cpcn.com
from the telecom newsgroup
AT&T is weighing a long list of plans to cut tens of billions of
dollars in costs that will likely result in even more dramatic job
losses for the connectivity and entertainment giant's employees. The
company previously said it plans to cut $1.5 billion in labor-related
costs this year.
https://www.sdxcentral.com/articles/news/att-puts-more-jobs-on-the-chopping-block/2020/03/
In addition to job cuts, the above article says there will be
wage and benefit cuts as well. Workers will end up doing more
work for less compensation.
Many workers these days are being hammered by lost benefits.
They must pay higher premiums for health care, yet receive
fewer benefits. If they get sick, the unremimbursed, out of
pocket and deductible costs are very substantial, costing
the worker many thousands of dollars.
In my opinion, that sucks. I believe companies, with their
record profits and tax cuts, can well afford to pay their
workers' health care.
Many companies reduced benefits and increased the worker's cost in
order to comply with the Affordable Care Act. Be careful what you
wish for. You may get it.
Total nonsense. They were reducing benefits and increasing workers
costs for over a decade _before_ the PPACA. After PPACA, premium increases
were much less annually than before. That's direct experience buying
healthcare for a 50 person company.
Remember the phrase "job killing health coverage".
That was why the ACA was bad, it was going to kill jobs.
Obama should have followed up every jobs report he had with
a reminder about these jobs went up even with "job killing health coverage".
During the Kill Obamacare Fiasco, we heard over and over that Obamacare
is a "disaster". The only disaster type thing I can think of is they
repealed the medical device tax that helped pay for Obamacare.
But that was only a blip in the big disaster called the Largest Tax Cut
in History.
Sadly, the biggest problem with Obamacare was the name. Because
they hated Obama so damn much, anything associated with him
had to be condemned and destroyed, regardless of its actual
merits.
Sadly, to this day, they're still blaming Obama for current
problems.
I'm surprised they don't blame him for Pearl Harbor or Vietnam.
Heck, I bet one of the rabid MAGA supporters probably would.
One tried to blame Obama for the privatization of civil service jobs
in 2008. I pointed out that was signed into law before he became
president, and in fact it was the second President Bush who signed it
into law.

He refused to believe it. Bush is the one who signed it into law.
--
Jim
r***@gmail.com
2020-03-12 04:28:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by h***@bbs.cpcn.com
from the telecom newsgroup
AT&T is weighing a long list of plans to cut tens of billions of
dollars in costs that will likely result in even more dramatic job
losses for the connectivity and entertainment giant's employees. The
company previously said it plans to cut $1.5 billion in labor-related
costs this year.
https://www.sdxcentral.com/articles/news/att-puts-more-jobs-on-the-chopping-block/2020/03/
In addition to job cuts, the above article says there will be
wage and benefit cuts as well. Workers will end up doing more
work for less compensation.
Q: Why did the bees go on strike?
A: Because they wanted shorter flowers and more honey.
Post by h***@bbs.cpcn.com
Many workers these days are being hammered by lost benefits.
They must pay higher premiums for health care, yet receive
fewer benefits. If they get sick, the unremimbursed, out of
pocket and deductible costs are very substantial, costing
the worker many thousands of dollars.
In my opinion, that sucks. I believe companies, with their
record profits and tax cuts, can well afford to pay their
workers' health care.
The link below is to a 1947 Bell System advertisement
describing the trustee responsibility of company
management. Unlike today, where managers answer solely
to enriching the stockholders, in the past management
recognized it served customers and employees as well
as stockholders.
https://books.google.com/books?id=nlIEAAAAMBAJ&lpg=PA32&dq=life%20bell%20system%20employment&pg=PA32#v=onepage&q&f=false
Personally, I think about that when I get my Comcast bill.
They have increased their rates 10% while removing channels
from my lineup and reducing service quality. The company
is incredibly profitable.
Lastly, here is a 1952 Bell System ad touting it as a good
place to work. While one didn't get rich working for the
telephone company, and the workplace was rather regimented,
it still was better than today's cutback mentality.
https://books.google.com/books?id=eFQEAAAAMBAJ&lpg=PA7&dq=employment%20%22bell%20telephone&pg=PA7#v=onepage&q&f=false
Loading...