From: Dinosaur_Sr on 15 Sep 2009 11:45
On Sep 14, 7:47 pm, Howard Brazee <how...(a)brazee.net> wrote:
> On Mon, 14 Sep 2009 15:42:33 -0700 (PDT), Dinosaur_Sr
> <frostback2...(a)att.net> wrote:
> >The worst thing is to have had society waste a lot of money educating
> >and employing you and you have virtually nothing of note to show in
> I disagree. Many countries have kids testing and testing and testing
> to make sure they don't waste money teaching the kids who pass. Once
> you fail, you're done.
> In the U.S. we can keep trying as long as we want. It may be
> expensive, but we get a lot of successes from late bloomers.
I agree with you on the late4 bloomer thing...but still a lot of
people do well on tests,, but show nothing in society.
From: dene on 15 Sep 2009 11:52
"The moderator" <no_spam_(a)no_mail.com> wrote in message
> "gray asphalt" <dontwrite(a)gmail.com> wrote in message
> > We need a national, privately owned co-op that
> > figures premiums on actuarial tables instead of
> > "return on investment". How hard can it be for a
> > bunch of us to get together and sign up for such a
> > company, promising to buy insurance from this
> > co-op when it becomes available? If we build a
> > group they will come.
Insurance companies rate on actuarial tables for group insurance. The
perameters are age, number of dependents, type of business, and location of
business. What you describe doesn't work. I've tried it many times with
trade associations. Why? Because enrollment is voluntary. Those who get a
good deal by enrolling will enroll, whereas the younger/healthy people will
go with an individual plan. That leaves the older people in the mix.
When an employer acquires group insurance, the mix is better, because most,
if not all the employees, are required to join.
From: dene on 15 Sep 2009 11:52
"William Clark" <clark(a)nospam.matsceng.ohio-state.edu> wrote in message
> In article <4aafabcb$0$23784$bbae4d71(a)news.suddenlink.net>,
> "The moderator" <no_spam_(a)no_mail.com> wrote:
> > "Carbon" <nobrac(a)nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
> > news:4aaedafa$0$23950$9a6e19ea(a)unlimited.newshosting.com...
> > > On Mon, 14 Sep 2009 15:44:12 -0700, Dinosaur_Sr wrote:
> > >> On Sep 13, 1:17 pm, Lloyd Parsons <lloydpars...(a)mac.com> wrote:
> > >>
> > >>> Yet for all that, they provide the care for less in overhead cost
> > >>> than do the insurance companies.
> > >>
> > >> On what do you base that? All I see is govt squeezing primary care
> > >> providers. I see no reduction in overhead..just reduction in
> > >> allocation to the actual service.
> > >
> > > Of course the insurance companies do not have profit margins. Heaven
> > > forbid they would take a big fat cut right off the top. And it's not
> > > like the sea of documentation they require is a burden on every
> > > practice in the country. Oh no. That would be totally inconceivable.
> > What is the profit margin of the major health insurance providers?
> Profit margin is a poor metric for health insurance companies, since
> they have very little input, other than the money they need to cover
> potential losses, which is several times any expected losses. Return on
> invested capital (ROIC), or even return on equity (ROE), are much better
You are correct, William.
From: Dinosaur_Sr on 15 Sep 2009 11:50
On Sep 15, 7:29 am, William Clark <cl...(a)nospam.matsceng.ohio-
> In article
> Dinosaur_Sr <frostback2...(a)att.net> wrote:
> > On Sep 14, 3:38 pm, William Clark <cl...(a)nospam.matsceng.ohio-
> > state.edu> wrote:
> > > In article
> > > <9a7c191f-1ea8-46fd-9ca1-340f53f8f...(a)k39g2000yqe.googlegroups.com>,
> > > Dinosaur Sr <frostback2...(a)att.net> wrote:
> > > > On Sep 8, 5:02 pm, William Clark <wcla...(a)colnospamumbus.rr.com>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > Let's all pause for a moment while he adjusts that almighty chip on his
> > > > > shoulder.
> > > > What is truly absurd is your belief that I have some ship on my
> > > > shoulder here. If you have a problem with what just about everyone in
> > > > this business thinks of deadwood faculty...too bad for you.
> > > > In any event, I was just reporting what the guy said...if all you can
> > > > do with a masters degree is get a job that pays $60,000, it's not
> > > > really worth the effort. You have a chip on your shoulder on that,
> > > > tough for you!
> > > A "ship" on your shoulder? HMS Clavicle, perhaps? Holy smoke, no wonder
> > > you have a hard time functioning! This sounds like something from "Monty
> > > Python".
> > > But while we are on it, why don't you let us all in on your definition
> > > of "deadwood" faculty"? You seem to like to bandy the term around, so
> > > let's be more specific, please.
> > > over to you.
> > We all know what this is. Some loser who got tenure and thinks (s)he
> > has a guaranteed job, so they do basically nothing but the minimal
> > work. No grants or contracts of their own, and they expect to teach
> > some minimal number of hours. They produce nothing or next to nothing.
> > Often have had their lab space reduced or eliminated. They should be
> > fired for violating their contracts, as they are in violation by not
> > producing an acceptable level of research as required by those
> > contracts, but for some reason they are not. State universities are
> > loaded with them, as you know. There's a place you could save a lot of
> > money. Lots of very active very hungry young academics out there with
> > grants and contracts ready to take those jobs for 1/2 the salary, but
> > nope!
> Actually, I don't know that "state universities are loaded with them",
> at least, not here. Perhaps you have a list of such faculty at Ohio
> State that you would care to share with us?
Really? Lets see the list of grants and contracts, professor by
professor. The ones that have no grants or contracts where they are
the PI are the deadwood.
From: Dinosaur_Sr on 15 Sep 2009 12:05
On Sep 14, 9:57 pm, "gray asphalt" <dontwr...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> "Alan Baker" <alangba...(a)telus.net> wrote in message
> > In article
> > <b25c49e6-dbc2-4522-8e5b-b77bdbbbf...(a)j4g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>,
> > johnty <john...(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> On 10 Sep, 19:56, Alan Baker <alangba...(a)telus.net> wrote:
> >> > It would help if it wasn't the Cuban government.
> >> > Socialist "paradises" are not known for their... ...candor... ...in
> >> > such
> >> > matters.
> >> Unlike Capitalist governments, eh?
> > Yup.
> > Because it's very hard to tell lies with a press that can expose them.
> Capitalism to a large extent is based on lies
> through advertising. And it's demoralizing to
> the public to be treated as one line on a balance
> sheet instead of as human beings. Nike submitted
> a brief, or whatever it's called, saying that it was
> their first amendment right to lie about sweat
> shops. The FDA has to force drug companies to
> list harmful side effects of drugs and it's not
> always done correctly.
> It seems like the American dream is to own a
> business and make a lot of money no matter
> what the cost to human values ... I don't know
> if the white collar crooks buy a house with a
> picket fence and raise their kids with the money
> they cheat the rest of us out of .... oh don't forget
> that many of them create jobs that the workers
> can feel guilty about doing. The American dream -
> to work for a clever bunch of crooks, buy a home
> and then lose it to another bunch of crooks in
> the banking business with the same greedy
> mindset as the ones you work for. And don't forget
> "Greed is Good".
That's absurd, and you see that kind of thing more in govt run
activities than anything else.
An example, lets say a business that hauls dirt around. You need these
people to do this for a lot of reasons, like providing fill for
housing contractors. If you have a private business doing this they
have to take into consideration how many trucks they need, the expense
of keeping the trucks running, and need reliable people to service the
trucks. You also need people to drive the trucks, and they need to be
reliable as well.
You obviously want to haul as much dirt per unit time as possible, but
again, you will be limited by the number of trucks you can have
running at a given time and the number of reliable drivers you can
Let's say you have a contract for 20 truckloads a day and haul it on
average 20 miles per day (40 miles return) as some sort of average for
that sort of business. You want to be efficient to make yourself some
money, but you also have to get the dirt out of there in a timely
manner to satisfy the customer who always has the option of using
another hauler. So lets say you have 3 drivers and 4 trucks for the 20
loads per day, keeping one truck in reserve for when the trucks break
down, as they must. You charge a rate based on those costs. When the
market is good, the businessperson would make good money, have some
overtime for drivers and mechanics. When the market is bad, the
businessperson would lose money and lay off drivers and mechanics.
What do govts do? They would be more interested in employing mechanics
and truck drivers. Much more likely to have 10 trucks hauling the 20
loads, 2 per truck per day. The rationale would be that they are
employing 10 people, who have families to feed, as well as the extra
mechanics. They would keep all these people on despite variations in
the market. The cost to the public would be far higher per load of
dirt moved, and no one would make a profit. The drivers and mechanics
would have to work for the govt dictate wage, and would have no
opportunity to start their own business. No wealth is really
generated, it is only consumed. No evil capitalists making profits,
only self righteous progressives talking about how many jobs they
That's the kind of choice we face with health care, IMHO.