Driver to drive?

[Phil Hobbs]

bloggs.fredbloggs.fred@gmail.com wrote:

On Wednesday, September 19, 2012 4:42:05 AM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Sep 19, 4:23 am, bloggs.fredbloggs.f...@gmail.com wrote:

On Tuesday, September 18, 2012 8:04:44 PM UTC-4, Jon Kirwan wrote:

On Tue, 18 Sep 2012 16:43:49 -0700 (PDT),BillSloman



bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:



On Sep 18, 11:31 pm, "tm" <No_one_h...@white-house.gov> wrote:



"Martin Brown" <|||newspam...@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote in message



news:QQ46s.1170$4o5.529@newsfe23.iad...



On 18/09/2012 16:22, Michael A. Terrell wrote:



Martin Brown wrote:



The USA is also populated



now with vastly overweight unfit hypochondriacs which doesn't help.



If we aren't careful, we'll catch up with Europe in that sad race.



America is the undisputed world leader in fat unfit hypochondriacs.



http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/hea_obe-health-obesity



http://www.gallup.com/poll/156707/majority-overweight-obese-states.as...



The majority of Americans are now overweight with only a minority having



what is considered a normal healthy body weight.



--



Regards,



Martin Brown



My goal is to die of a heart attack, a stroke, cancer, and kidney and liver



failure, all at the same time. Anytime after 85 YRs



Then you'd better move to Monaco.



https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder...



tells us that that the only country where more than half the



population survives past 85 - they survive on average for 89.68 years.



Even there, it probably only the women who have a better than even



chance of surviving past 85.



I'm moving back to Australia in a month, where average age of death is



apparently 81.90 - which puts us nineth on the list.



The US is 50th, with an average life expectancy of 78.49 year.



See:



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monaco



"Monaco levies no income tax on individuals. The



absence of a personal income tax in the principality



has attracted to it a considerable number of wealthy



'tax refugee' residents from European countries who



derive the majority of their income from activity



outside Monaco."



Wealth is HIGHLY correlated to life expectancy.



Jon



And to whom do you attribute that completely inaccurate observation?



It's not inaccurate, but it does conflate a lot of different effects.



http://www.conferenceboard.ca/hcp/details/health/life-expectancy.aspx



suggests that it's true from nation to nation and within at least one

nation - Canada.



It must be predicated on being a member of the sedentary population. You obviously never lived in the country or the mountains. There

are plenty of men who live to nearly 100 and spent a lifetime doing menial low paying labor, but they were well nourished and lived

free of the toxins of industrialized society. Heck, some of them are still procreating at 85, and many don't even begin regular doctor > visits until their mid-70s. And these people were far from living the health nut lifestyle, smoking and drinking, eating lots of red

fat marbled meat, butter, cream, sugar, etc.



Which doesn't really tie up with the observation that life expectancy

is lower in the rural area of Canada.



Education level correlates positively with both health and income, and

may explain a lot of the positive correlation between wealth and life

expectancy.



--

Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

There is a much more extensive report here: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/hus/hus11.pdf#fig32

They don't explicitly break anything down by income, they use a much broader measure of socioeconomic status. In too many cases there is no clear cause and effect relation between income and health. The strongest influence on life expectancy is education level.

Personally, I can't imagine wanting to live to be 90. Various relatives
have managed it, but it didn't do them much good.

It's really sad to see people trying desperate measures to try to keep
Mom or Dad (or themselves) around, when there's no prospect of returning
to health or even freedom from pain.

Life on Earth is short.

Cheers

Phil Hobbs

--
Dr Philip C D Hobbs
Principal Consultant
ElectroOptical Innovations LLC
Optics, Electro-optics, Photonics, Analog Electronics

160 North State Road #203
Briarcliff Manor NY 10510
845-480-2058

hobbs at electrooptical dot net
http://electrooptical.net

 

On Wednesday, September 19, 2012 4:42:05 AM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:

On Sep 19, 4:23 am, bloggs.fredbloggs.f...@gmail.com wrote:

On Tuesday, September 18, 2012 8:04:44 PM UTC-4, Jon Kirwan wrote:

On Tue, 18 Sep 2012 16:43:49 -0700 (PDT),BillSloman



bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:



On Sep 18, 11:31 pm, "tm" <No_one_h...@white-house.gov> wrote:



"Martin Brown" <|||newspam...@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote in message



news:QQ46s.1170$4o5.529@newsfe23.iad...



On 18/09/2012 16:22, Michael A. Terrell wrote:



Martin Brown wrote:



  The USA is also populated



now with vastly overweight unfit hypochondriacs which doesn't help.



    If we aren't careful, we'll catch up with Europe in that sad race.



America is the undisputed world leader in fat unfit hypochondriacs.



http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/hea_obe-health-obesity



http://www.gallup.com/poll/156707/majority-overweight-obese-states.as...



The majority of Americans are now overweight with only a minority having



what is considered a normal healthy body weight.



--



Regards,



Martin Brown



My goal is to die of a heart attack, a stroke, cancer, and kidney and liver



failure, all at the same time. Anytime after 85 YRs



Then you'd better move to Monaco.



https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder...



tells us that that the only country where more than half the



population survives past 85 - they survive on average for 89.68 years.



Even there, it probably only the women who have a better than even



chance of surviving past 85.



I'm moving back to Australia in a month, where average age of death is



apparently 81.90 - which puts us nineth on the list.



The US is 50th, with an average life expectancy of 78.49 year.



See:



   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monaco



   "Monaco levies no income tax on individuals. The



    absence of a personal income tax in the principality



    has attracted to it a considerable number of wealthy



    'tax refugee' residents from European countries who



    derive the majority of their income from activity



    outside Monaco."



Wealth is HIGHLY correlated to life expectancy.



Jon



And to whom do you attribute that completely inaccurate observation?



It's not inaccurate, but it does conflate a lot of different effects.



http://www.conferenceboard.ca/hcp/details/health/life-expectancy.aspx



suggests that it's true from nation to nation and within at least one

nation - Canada.



It must be predicated on being a member of the sedentary population. You obviously never lived in the country or the mountains. There

are plenty of men who live to nearly 100 and spent a lifetime doing menial low paying labor, but they were well nourished and lived

free of the toxins of industrialized society. Heck, some of them are still procreating at 85, and many don't even begin regular doctor > visits until their mid-70s. And these people were far from living the health nut lifestyle, smoking and drinking, eating lots of red

fat marbled meat, butter, cream, sugar, etc.



Which doesn't really tie up with the observation that life expectancy

is lower in the rural area of Canada.



Education level correlates positively with both health and income, and

may explain a lot of the positive correlation between wealth and life

expectancy.



--

Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

There is a much more extensive report here: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/hus/hus11.pdf#fig32

They don't explicitly break anything down by income, they use a much broader measure of socioeconomic status. In too many cases there is no clear cause and effect relation between income and health. The strongest influence on life expectancy is education level.

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Sep 19, 2:41 pm, Phil Hobbs
<pcdhSpamMeSensel...@electrooptical.net> wrote:

bloggs.fredbloggs.f...@gmail.com wrote:

On Wednesday, September 19, 2012 4:42:05 AM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Sep 19, 4:23 am, bloggs.fredbloggs.f...@gmail.com wrote:

On Tuesday, September 18, 2012 8:04:44 PM UTC-4, Jon Kirwan wrote:

On Tue, 18 Sep 2012 16:43:49 -0700 (PDT),BillSloman

bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:

On Sep 18, 11:31 pm, "tm" <No_one_h...@white-house.gov> wrote:

"Martin Brown" <|||newspam...@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote in message

news:QQ46s.1170$4o5.529@newsfe23.iad...

On 18/09/2012 16:22, Michael A. Terrell wrote:

Martin Brown wrote:

  The USA is also populated

now with vastly overweight unfit hypochondriacs which doesn't help.

    If we aren't careful, we'll catch up with Europe in that sad race.

America is the undisputed world leader in fat unfit hypochondriacs.

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/hea_obe-health-obesity

http://www.gallup.com/poll/156707/majority-overweight-obese-states.as...

The majority of Americans are now overweight with only a minority having

what is considered a normal healthy body weight.

--

Regards,

Martin Brown

My goal is to die of a heart attack, a stroke, cancer, and kidney and liver

failure, all at the same time. Anytime after 85 YRs

Then you'd better move to Monaco.

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder...

tells us that that the only country where more than half the

population survives past 85 - they survive on average for 89.68 years.

Even there, it probably only the women who have a better than even

chance of surviving past 85.

I'm moving back to Australia in a month, where average age of death is

apparently 81.90 - which puts us nineth on the list.

The US is 50th, with an average life expectancy of 78.49 year.

See:

   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monaco

   "Monaco levies no income tax on individuals. The

    absence of a personal income tax in the principality

    has attracted to it a considerable number of wealthy

    'tax refugee' residents from European countries who

    derive the majority of their income from activity

    outside Monaco."

Wealth is HIGHLY correlated to life expectancy.

Jon

And to whom do you attribute that completely inaccurate observation?

It's not inaccurate, but it does conflate a lot of different effects.

http://www.conferenceboard.ca/hcp/details/health/life-expectancy.aspx

suggests that it's true from nation to nation and within at least one

nation - Canada.

It must be predicated on being a member of the sedentary population.. You obviously never lived in the country or the mountains. There

are plenty of men who live to nearly 100 and spent a lifetime doing menial low paying labor, but they were well nourished and lived

free of the toxins of industrialized society. Heck, some of them are still procreating at 85, and many don't even begin regular doctor > visits until their mid-70s. And these people were far from living the health nut lifestyle, smoking and drinking, eating lots of red

fat marbled meat, butter, cream, sugar, etc.

Which doesn't really tie up with the observation that life expectancy

is lower in the rural area of Canada.

Education level correlates positively with both health and income, and

may explain a lot of the positive correlation between wealth and life

expectancy.

--

Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

There is a much more extensive report here:http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/hus/hus11.pdf#fig32

They don't explicitly break anything down by income, they use a much broader measure of socioeconomic status. In too many cases there is no clear cause and effect relation between income and health. The strongest influence on life expectancy is education level.

Personally, I can't imagine wanting to live to be 90.

Wait until you get to 89 before you make up your mind.

 Various relatives
have managed it, but it didn't do them much good.

Compared with what alternative? Religion promises eternal life singing
in the heavenly choir, but there's some uncertainty about the working
conditions.

It's really sad to see people trying desperate measures to try to keep
Mom or Dad (or themselves) around, when there's no prospect of returning
to health or even freedom from pain.

But in the US there's no legal alternative.

Life on Earth is short.

Finite, in any event.

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

 

[krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz]

On Wed, 19 Sep 2012 08:41:28 -0400, Phil Hobbs
<pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> wrote:

bloggs.fredbloggs.fred@gmail.com wrote:

On Wednesday, September 19, 2012 4:42:05 AM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Sep 19, 4:23 am, bloggs.fredbloggs.f...@gmail.com wrote:

On Tuesday, September 18, 2012 8:04:44 PM UTC-4, Jon Kirwan wrote:

On Tue, 18 Sep 2012 16:43:49 -0700 (PDT),BillSloman



bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:



On Sep 18, 11:31 pm, "tm" <No_one_h...@white-house.gov> wrote:



"Martin Brown" <|||newspam...@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote in message



news:QQ46s.1170$4o5.529@newsfe23.iad...



On 18/09/2012 16:22, Michael A. Terrell wrote:



Martin Brown wrote:



The USA is also populated



now with vastly overweight unfit hypochondriacs which doesn't help.



If we aren't careful, we'll catch up with Europe in that sad race.



America is the undisputed world leader in fat unfit hypochondriacs.



http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/hea_obe-health-obesity



http://www.gallup.com/poll/156707/majority-overweight-obese-states.as...



The majority of Americans are now overweight with only a minority having



what is considered a normal healthy body weight.



--



Regards,



Martin Brown



My goal is to die of a heart attack, a stroke, cancer, and kidney and liver



failure, all at the same time. Anytime after 85 YRs



Then you'd better move to Monaco.



https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder...



tells us that that the only country where more than half the



population survives past 85 - they survive on average for 89.68 years.



Even there, it probably only the women who have a better than even



chance of surviving past 85.



I'm moving back to Australia in a month, where average age of death is



apparently 81.90 - which puts us nineth on the list.



The US is 50th, with an average life expectancy of 78.49 year.



See:



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monaco



"Monaco levies no income tax on individuals. The



absence of a personal income tax in the principality



has attracted to it a considerable number of wealthy



'tax refugee' residents from European countries who



derive the majority of their income from activity



outside Monaco."



Wealth is HIGHLY correlated to life expectancy.



Jon



And to whom do you attribute that completely inaccurate observation?



It's not inaccurate, but it does conflate a lot of different effects.



http://www.conferenceboard.ca/hcp/details/health/life-expectancy.aspx



suggests that it's true from nation to nation and within at least one

nation - Canada.



It must be predicated on being a member of the sedentary population. You obviously never lived in the country or the mountains. There

are plenty of men who live to nearly 100 and spent a lifetime doing menial low paying labor, but they were well nourished and lived

free of the toxins of industrialized society. Heck, some of them are still procreating at 85, and many don't even begin regular doctor > visits until their mid-70s. And these people were far from living the health nut lifestyle, smoking and drinking, eating lots of red

fat marbled meat, butter, cream, sugar, etc.



Which doesn't really tie up with the observation that life expectancy

is lower in the rural area of Canada.



Education level correlates positively with both health and income, and

may explain a lot of the positive correlation between wealth and life

expectancy.



--

Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

There is a much more extensive report here: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/hus/hus11.pdf#fig32

They don't explicitly break anything down by income, they use a much broader measure of socioeconomic status. In too many cases there is no clear cause and effect relation between income and health. The strongest influence on life expectancy is education level.

Personally, I can't imagine wanting to live to be 90. Various relatives
have managed it, but it didn't do them much good.

It's really sad to see people trying desperate measures to try to keep
Mom or Dad (or themselves) around, when there's no prospect of returning
to health or even freedom from pain.

My mother died at 95 but was able to take care of herself, in a retirement
home (most meals prepared and housecleaning services) until the last year. She
lived alone in her own home until after 85.

Life on Earth is short.

No reason to want to shorten it.

 

On Wednesday, September 19, 2012 8:54:02 AM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:

On Sep 19, 2:41 pm, Phil Hobbs

pcdhSpamMeSensel...@electrooptical.net> wrote:

bloggs.fredbloggs.f...@gmail.com wrote:



On Wednesday, September 19, 2012 4:42:05 AM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:

On Sep 19, 4:23 am, bloggs.fredbloggs.f...@gmail.com wrote:



On Tuesday, September 18, 2012 8:04:44 PM UTC-4, Jon Kirwan wrote:



On Tue, 18 Sep 2012 16:43:49 -0700 (PDT),BillSloman



bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:



On Sep 18, 11:31 pm, "tm" <No_one_h...@white-house.gov> wrote:



"Martin Brown" <|||newspam...@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote in message



news:QQ46s.1170$4o5.529@newsfe23.iad...



On 18/09/2012 16:22, Michael A. Terrell wrote:



Martin Brown wrote:



  The USA is also populated



now with vastly overweight unfit hypochondriacs which doesn't help.



    If we aren't careful, we'll catch up with Europe in that sad race.



America is the undisputed world leader in fat unfit hypochondriacs.



http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/hea_obe-health-obesity



http://www.gallup.com/poll/156707/majority-overweight-obese-states.as...



The majority of Americans are now overweight with only a minority having



what is considered a normal healthy body weight.



--



Regards,



Martin Brown



My goal is to die of a heart attack, a stroke, cancer, and kidney and liver



failure, all at the same time. Anytime after 85 YRs



Then you'd better move to Monaco.



https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder...



tells us that that the only country where more than half the



population survives past 85 - they survive on average for 89.68 years.



Even there, it probably only the women who have a better than even



chance of surviving past 85.



I'm moving back to Australia in a month, where average age of death is



apparently 81.90 - which puts us nineth on the list.



The US is 50th, with an average life expectancy of 78.49 year.



See:



   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monaco



   "Monaco levies no income tax on individuals. The



    absence of a personal income tax in the principality



    has attracted to it a considerable number of wealthy



    'tax refugee' residents from European countries who



    derive the majority of their income from activity



    outside Monaco."



Wealth is HIGHLY correlated to life expectancy.



Jon



And to whom do you attribute that completely inaccurate observation?



It's not inaccurate, but it does conflate a lot of different effects.



http://www.conferenceboard.ca/hcp/details/health/life-expectancy.aspx



suggests that it's true from nation to nation and within at least one



nation - Canada.



It must be predicated on being a member of the sedentary population. You obviously never lived in the country or the mountains. There



are plenty of men who live to nearly 100 and spent a lifetime doing menial low paying labor, but they were well nourished and lived



free of the toxins of industrialized society. Heck, some of them are still procreating at 85, and many don't even begin regular doctor > visits until their mid-70s. And these people were far from living the health nut lifestyle, smoking and drinking, eating lots of red



fat marbled meat, butter, cream, sugar, etc.



Which doesn't really tie up with the observation that life expectancy



is lower in the rural area of Canada.



Education level correlates positively with both health and income, and



may explain a lot of the positive correlation between wealth and life



expectancy.



--



Bill Sloman, Nijmegen



There is a much more extensive report here:http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/hus/hus11.pdf#fig32



They don't explicitly break anything down by income, they use a much broader measure of socioeconomic status. In too many cases there is no clear cause and effect relation between income and health. The strongest influence on life expectancy is education level.



Personally, I can't imagine wanting to live to be 90.



Wait until you get to 89 before you make up your mind.



 Various relatives

have managed it, but it didn't do them much good.



Compared with what alternative? Religion promises eternal life singing

in the heavenly choir, but there's some uncertainty about the working

conditions.



It's really sad to see people trying desperate measures to try to keep

Mom or Dad (or themselves) around, when there's no prospect of returning

to health or even freedom from pain.



But in the US there's no legal alternative.



Life on Earth is short.



Finite, in any event.



--

Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

Not everyone dies in excruciating pain from disease. It seems the older people get, the better the chance of drifting away peacefully in their sleep. Also, a person's perception of time seems to be relative to their cumulative total in life, so that a year here or there to an 80-something has about as perceived duration as a few months to a 30-something. But all this is going to end soon, people will be able to transition into brand new cloned bodies in their 20s every few years or so, or the bodies they have will become ageless. Death by aging will be a thing of the past.

 

[Jon Kirwan]

On Tue, 18 Sep 2012 19:23:09 -0700 (PDT),
bloggs.fredbloggs.fred@gmail.com wrote:

And to whom do you attribute that completely inaccurate observation?

http://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/workingpapers/wp108.html

Jon

 

[Phil Hobbs]

Bill Sloman wrote:

On Sep 19, 2:41 pm, Phil Hobbs
pcdhSpamMeSensel...@electrooptical.net> wrote:
bloggs.fredbloggs.f...@gmail.com wrote:

On Wednesday, September 19, 2012 4:42:05 AM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Sep 19, 4:23 am, bloggs.fredbloggs.f...@gmail.com wrote:

On Tuesday, September 18, 2012 8:04:44 PM UTC-4, Jon Kirwan wrote:

On Tue, 18 Sep 2012 16:43:49 -0700 (PDT),BillSloman

bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:

On Sep 18, 11:31 pm, "tm" <No_one_h...@white-house.gov> wrote:

"Martin Brown" <|||newspam...@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote in message

news:QQ46s.1170$4o5.529@newsfe23.iad...

On 18/09/2012 16:22, Michael A. Terrell wrote:

Martin Brown wrote:

The USA is also populated

now with vastly overweight unfit hypochondriacs which doesn't help.

If we aren't careful, we'll catch up with Europe in that sad race.

America is the undisputed world leader in fat unfit hypochondriacs.

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/hea_obe-health-obesity

http://www.gallup.com/poll/156707/majority-overweight-obese-states.as...

The majority of Americans are now overweight with only a minority having

what is considered a normal healthy body weight.

--

Regards,

Martin Brown

My goal is to die of a heart attack, a stroke, cancer, and kidney and liver

failure, all at the same time. Anytime after 85 YRs

Then you'd better move to Monaco.

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder...

tells us that that the only country where more than half the

population survives past 85 - they survive on average for 89.68 years.

Even there, it probably only the women who have a better than even

chance of surviving past 85.

I'm moving back to Australia in a month, where average age of death is

apparently 81.90 - which puts us nineth on the list.

The US is 50th, with an average life expectancy of 78.49 year.

See:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monaco

"Monaco levies no income tax on individuals. The

absence of a personal income tax in the principality

has attracted to it a considerable number of wealthy

'tax refugee' residents from European countries who

derive the majority of their income from activity

outside Monaco."

Wealth is HIGHLY correlated to life expectancy.

Jon

And to whom do you attribute that completely inaccurate observation?

It's not inaccurate, but it does conflate a lot of different effects.

http://www.conferenceboard.ca/hcp/details/health/life-expectancy.aspx

suggests that it's true from nation to nation and within at least one

nation - Canada.

It must be predicated on being a member of the sedentary population. You obviously never lived in the country or the mountains. There

are plenty of men who live to nearly 100 and spent a lifetime doing menial low paying labor, but they were well nourished and lived

free of the toxins of industrialized society. Heck, some of them are still procreating at 85, and many don't even begin regular doctor > visits until their mid-70s. And these people were far from living the health nut lifestyle, smoking and drinking, eating lots of red

fat marbled meat, butter, cream, sugar, etc.

Which doesn't really tie up with the observation that life expectancy

is lower in the rural area of Canada.

Education level correlates positively with both health and income, and

may explain a lot of the positive correlation between wealth and life

expectancy.

--

Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

There is a much more extensive report here:http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/hus/hus11.pdf#fig32

They don't explicitly break anything down by income, they use a much broader measure of socioeconomic status. In too many cases there is no clear cause and effect relation between income and health. The strongest influence on life expectancy is education level.

Personally, I can't imagine wanting to live to be 90.

Wait until you get to 89 before you make up your mind.

Various relatives
have managed it, but it didn't do them much good.

Compared with what alternative? Religion promises eternal life singing
in the heavenly choir, but there's some uncertainty about the working
conditions.

It's really sad to see people trying desperate measures to try to keep
Mom or Dad (or themselves) around, when there's no prospect of returning
to health or even freedom from pain.

But in the US there's no legal alternative.

Where did you get that idea? Google for "living will" and "health care
proxy".


Cheers

Phil Hobbs


--
Dr Philip C D Hobbs
Principal Consultant
ElectroOptical Innovations LLC
Optics, Electro-optics, Photonics, Analog Electronics

160 North State Road #203
Briarcliff Manor NY 10510
845-480-2058

hobbs at electrooptical dot net
http://electrooptical.net

 

[josephkk]

On Sat, 15 Sep 2012 18:59:42 -0700, Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com>
wrote:

With Obamacare, we'll all have insurance, but not medical care.

An extraordinarily succinct and concise summation.

?-)

 

[josephkk]

On Sat, 15 Sep 2012 14:55:15 -0500, Les Cargill <lcargill99@comcast.com>
wrote:

John Larkin wrote:
On Sat, 15 Sep 2012 12:27:04 -0600, hamilton <hamilton@nothere.com
wrote:

On 9/15/2012 11:56 AM, Phil Hobbs wrote:


I asked about _giving_, i.e. you seem to expect other people to be
generous at the 50% level. Are you?


This is an interesting interpretation.

I give my money voluntary to the insurance company to keep me from going
broke if I get sick or break something.

I also give my money to the local,state,federal government.
I do expect to have roads to drive on and emergency personal if I need
those.

The insurance company will fight me to give the services they promised
to give.
At least the local government will give me services with out question.
( even if I don't pay the highest tax rate )

There seems to be a problem with what insurance companies are in the
business of.

Yes, I know "to make a profit for its share holders"

But what about the promise of services I supposedly paid for ?

The insurance companies can _not_ pay after the fact ??

Give a lame excuses as to why they won't pay.

My only recourse is to sue, but that time I may be dead and they know
they they won't have to pay.

There is something wrong with this picture.

The politician were suppose to help the people in their home districts.

But politicians today are only interested in lining their own pockets.

I wish I know how to fix it.

Vote for a better class of people.



Anybody trustworthy would not accept the job.

Not exactly true, they would never be allowed run in the first place. And
would be assassinated if they somehow ran by themselves and won.

?-/

 

[josephkk]

On Sat, 15 Sep 2012 22:04:33 -0600, hamilton <hamilton@nothere.com> wrote:

On 9/15/2012 3:59 PM, Phil Hobbs wrote:


I was asking about _giving_, i.e. voluntarily parting with some
proportion of your income just because it's the right thing to do, to

This is the interpretation I was talking about.

Not at all. You are telling Mr. Barr that he must give up half of what
little he gets (1.5 %) on the sales of his franchises.

The owner of a company can take what ever paycheck he wants to, I have
no problem with that.

Oh really? Can you take a million dollars a month?

But he still has a responsibility to pay the taxes and obey the laws
that are required.

If he wants to close his company so he does not have to pay X,Y, or Z
taxes, that is his prerogative.

However, cutting the pay and benefits of those who work for him is
another mater.

Mr. Barr is cutting the pay and benefits of those and not cutting his
own paycheck.

And what part of perverse incentives do you not understand?

OK, fine.

Close the doors and walk away.

If the company does not survive is in not his fault ?

Mr Barr needs employees to make a company work.
Hes own paycheck is not guaranteed.

And yet just a little bit above you said that the owner could take any
amount wanted. Which is it?

You build a company to survive to be profitable in the future, not to
milk it for all its worth until you can no longer get enough out of it.

What is business school teaching today.

No wonder Ponzi schemes are so rampant.

hamilton

You need to work very hard on being logically consistent, as you are doing
rather poorly, contradicting your self repeatedly in your post.

?-)

 

[josephkk]

On Sat, 15 Sep 2012 18:02:09 -0700, miso <miso@sushi.com> wrote:

23 stores?! 421 employees? and he only makes $800k/yr !!! Is that
'pure' profit that NEVER has to be dipped into? ouch that's not much
money for a LOT of head aches.

When you get to a certain amount of critical mass, you pay people to
manage the business. Those are probably the 30 people he gives a shit
about and pays their healthcare.

It is like being a landlord. You own one building and you spend your
evenings plunging poop in clogged toilets. You own 20 buildings, then
you have "people."

A.) It depends on the size of the building, one dwelling or two maybe you
do it, maybe you just hire someone to deal with the current emergency. Ten
or more dwellings (may well be one building up to hundreds of units), you
hire someone (a property manager) to hire someone for the various
emergencies.

B.) Commercial property is different and on site building managers is the
norm. Complete with custodial care being done by a building manager
contracted company. The building manager is responsible for an approved
(mostly by local agencies, often local Fire Marshal) emergency plan.

?-)

 

[josephkk]

On Sat, 15 Sep 2012 21:30:31 -0700 (PDT), bloggs.fredbloggs.fred@gmail.com
wrote:

That's a joke rationale that's been around for a while now. I think some jackass who owns a nationwide pizza chain came out with it first. Here's the deal on these low life scoundrels: the public is picking up their employees' health care through the medicaid for which they qualify. The idea with Obamacare is to shift this burden away from the general tax payer and into the private sector. Which private sector is that you ask? It is the friggin customers of these cut-throat businesses screwing their employees and the American taxpayer by not providing health insurance just so they can make a price point for their customers. If their customers don't want to pay the nominal increase then let the market rule and put the business and its so-called services out to pasture. Obamacare was designed by people with long experience and extreme expertise in the health industry economics sector. They know quite a bit more than some shmo hawking junk food, dontcha think?

You are hellishly mistaken about who designed it and what its objectives
are.

?-)

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Sep 20, 3:50 am, Phil Hobbs
<pcdhSpamMeSensel...@electrooptical.net> wrote:

BillSlomanwrote:

On Sep 19, 2:41 pm, Phil Hobbs
pcdhSpamMeSensel...@electrooptical.net> wrote:
bloggs.fredbloggs.f...@gmail.com wrote:

On Wednesday, September 19, 2012 4:42:05 AM UTC-4,BillSlomanwrote:
On Sep 19, 4:23 am, bloggs.fredbloggs.f...@gmail.com wrote:

On Tuesday, September 18, 2012 8:04:44 PM UTC-4, Jon Kirwan wrote:

On Tue, 18 Sep 2012 16:43:49 -0700 (PDT),BillSloman

bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:

On Sep 18, 11:31 pm, "tm" <No_one_h...@white-house.gov> wrote:

"Martin Brown" <|||newspam...@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote in message

news:QQ46s.1170$4o5.529@newsfe23.iad...

On 18/09/2012 16:22, Michael A. Terrell wrote:

Martin Brown wrote:

<snip>

It's really sad to see people trying desperate measures to try to keep
Mom or Dad (or themselves) around, when there's no prospect of returning
to health or even freedom from pain.

But in the US there's no legal alternative.

Where did you get that idea?  Google for "living will" and "health care
proxy".

Not exactly euthenasia. You may be able to persuade the medical
profession to avoid heroic efforts to keep you alive, but you've got
to hang around until you die from whatever it is that is making a mess
of your body.

My cancer specialist friend talks about "adequate pain control" which
is enough morphine to stop you breathing, but that isn't covered by
"living wills" or "health care proxies" - it's completely in the hands
of the health care professionals.

The Dutch are more sensible about this, as they are about many things.

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

 

[Bill Bowden]

On Sep 19, 5:41 am, Phil Hobbs
<pcdhSpamMeSensel...@electrooptical.net> wrote:

bloggs.fredbloggs.f...@gmail.com wrote:

On Wednesday, September 19, 2012 4:42:05 AM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Sep 19, 4:23 am, bloggs.fredbloggs.f...@gmail.com wrote:

On Tuesday, September 18, 2012 8:04:44 PM UTC-4, Jon Kirwan wrote:

On Tue, 18 Sep 2012 16:43:49 -0700 (PDT),BillSloman

bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:

On Sep 18, 11:31 pm, "tm" <No_one_h...@white-house.gov> wrote:

"Martin Brown" <|||newspam...@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote in message

news:QQ46s.1170$4o5.529@newsfe23.iad...

On 18/09/2012 16:22, Michael A. Terrell wrote:

Martin Brown wrote:

  The USA is also populated

now with vastly overweight unfit hypochondriacs which doesn't help.

    If we aren't careful, we'll catch up with Europe in that sad race.

America is the undisputed world leader in fat unfit hypochondriacs.

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/hea_obe-health-obesity

http://www.gallup.com/poll/156707/majority-overweight-obese-states.as...

The majority of Americans are now overweight with only a minority having

what is considered a normal healthy body weight.

--

Regards,

Martin Brown

My goal is to die of a heart attack, a stroke, cancer, and kidney and liver

failure, all at the same time. Anytime after 85 YRs

Then you'd better move to Monaco.

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder...

tells us that that the only country where more than half the

population survives past 85 - they survive on average for 89.68 years.

Even there, it probably only the women who have a better than even

chance of surviving past 85.

I'm moving back to Australia in a month, where average age of death is

apparently 81.90 - which puts us nineth on the list.

The US is 50th, with an average life expectancy of 78.49 year.

See:

   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monaco

   "Monaco levies no income tax on individuals. The

    absence of a personal income tax in the principality

    has attracted to it a considerable number of wealthy

    'tax refugee' residents from European countries who

    derive the majority of their income from activity

    outside Monaco."

Wealth is HIGHLY correlated to life expectancy.

Jon

And to whom do you attribute that completely inaccurate observation?

It's not inaccurate, but it does conflate a lot of different effects.

http://www.conferenceboard.ca/hcp/details/health/life-expectancy.aspx

suggests that it's true from nation to nation and within at least one

nation - Canada.

It must be predicated on being a member of the sedentary population.. You obviously never lived in the country or the mountains. There

are plenty of men who live to nearly 100 and spent a lifetime doing menial low paying labor, but they were well nourished and lived

free of the toxins of industrialized society. Heck, some of them are still procreating at 85, and many don't even begin regular doctor > visits until their mid-70s. And these people were far from living the health nut lifestyle, smoking and drinking, eating lots of red

fat marbled meat, butter, cream, sugar, etc.

Which doesn't really tie up with the observation that life expectancy

is lower in the rural area of Canada.

Education level correlates positively with both health and income, and

may explain a lot of the positive correlation between wealth and life

expectancy.

--

Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

There is a much more extensive report here:http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/hus/hus11.pdf#fig32

They don't explicitly break anything down by income, they use a much broader measure of socioeconomic status. In too many cases there is no clear cause and effect relation between income and health. The strongest influence on life expectancy is education level.

Personally, I can't imagine wanting to live to be 90.  Various relatives
have managed it, but it didn't do them much good.

It's really sad to see people trying desperate measures to try to keep
Mom or Dad (or themselves) around, when there's no prospect of returning
to health or even freedom from pain.

Life on Earth is short.

Cheers

Phil Hobbs

I knew a guy 87 who recently died of Emphysema. They gave him a year
to live when he started using oxygen bottles, and he lasted 7 months.
He was happy person who never complained or worried. He was always
joking and frequently offered me a cigarette. His wife gave me his
last 2 packs of smokes, and I keep the boxes to remember him.

-Bill

--
Dr Philip C D Hobbs
Principal Consultant
ElectroOptical Innovations LLC
Optics, Electro-optics, Photonics, Analog Electronics

160 North State Road #203
Briarcliff Manor NY 10510
845-480-2058

hobbs at electrooptical dot nethttp://electrooptical.net- Hide quoted text -

 

[josephkk]

On Tue, 18 Sep 2012 08:21:46 +0100, Martin Brown
<|||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote:

The notes for expats in English make clear what insurances you should
have and how much it costs (comparatively little). The consequences of
not having it can be disastrous if someone claims against you.

What's illegal worker insurance? Or 3rd party claims insurance?
These are foreign to me.

OK. They do need some explanation but the concepts are simple.

If you employ someone (even *illegally* as some rich expats tend to do
for cleaners and gardeners) then you are automatically liable for any
injuries that they suffer on their way to work upto and including death
in a car crash. Belgian roads are pretty dangerous with a mix of
"priorite a droite" and normal junctions. You will also be sued by the
state for employing illegal worker(s) if you get caught as well.

The other is if for example you fail to clear the path in front of your
house of snow or a workman falls off your roof and is injured they can
sue you. Belgians think nothing of suing neighbours this way.

Crikey, and everybody complains about how litigious 'murcans are. Sounds

like the primary national pastime there.

?-)

 

[Martin Brown]

On 20/09/2012 10:28, josephkk wrote:

On Tue, 18 Sep 2012 08:21:46 +0100, Martin Brown
|||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote:


The notes for expats in English make clear what insurances you should
have and how much it costs (comparatively little). The consequences of
not having it can be disastrous if someone claims against you.

What's illegal worker insurance? Or 3rd party claims insurance?
These are foreign to me.

OK. They do need some explanation but the concepts are simple.

If you employ someone (even *illegally* as some rich expats tend to do
for cleaners and gardeners) then you are automatically liable for any
injuries that they suffer on their way to work upto and including death
in a car crash. Belgian roads are pretty dangerous with a mix of
"priorite a droite" and normal junctions. You will also be sued by the
state for employing illegal worker(s) if you get caught as well.

The other is if for example you fail to clear the path in front of your
house of snow or a workman falls off your roof and is injured they can
sue you. Belgians think nothing of suing neighbours this way.

Crikey, and everybody complains about how litigious 'murcans are. Sounds
like the primary national pastime there.

?-)

Not particularly - they only sue over *real* injuries as opposed to
coffee being too hot or being frightened by seeing the word "asbestos".

Napoleonic code is rather different to UK and US law so as an expat you
have to be aware of the most important differences.

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Sep 20, 5:01 am, josephkk <joseph_barr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

On Sat, 15 Sep 2012 21:30:31 -0700 (PDT), bloggs.fredbloggs.f...@gmail.com
wrote:



That's a joke rationale that's been around for a while now. I think some jackass who owns a nationwide pizza chain came out with it first. Here's the deal on these low life scoundrels: the public is picking up their employees' health care  through the medicaid for which they qualify. The idea with Obamacare is to shift this burden away from the general tax payer and into the private sector. Which private sector is that you ask? It is the friggin customers of these cut-throat businesses screwing their employees and the American taxpayer by not providing health insurance just so they can make a price point for their customers. If their customers don't want to pay the nominal increase then let the market rule and put the business and its so-called services out to pasture. Obamacare was designed by people with long experience and extreme expertise in the health industry economics sector.. They know quite a bit more than some shmo hawking junk food, dontcha think?

You are hellishly mistaken about who designed it and what its objectives
are.

Whereas right-wing nitwits "know" that Obama is a closet Muslim who is
out cripple the US of A. This ought to be funny, but when the whole
Republican Party has been taken over by people who are almost as
irrational, it becomes a rather sick joke.

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

 

[Phil Hobbs]

Martin Brown wrote:

On 20/09/2012 10:28, josephkk wrote:
On Tue, 18 Sep 2012 08:21:46 +0100, Martin Brown
|||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote:


The notes for expats in English make clear what insurances you should
have and how much it costs (comparatively little). The consequences of
not having it can be disastrous if someone claims against you.

What's illegal worker insurance? Or 3rd party claims insurance?
These are foreign to me.

OK. They do need some explanation but the concepts are simple.

If you employ someone (even *illegally* as some rich expats tend to do
for cleaners and gardeners) then you are automatically liable for any
injuries that they suffer on their way to work upto and including death
in a car crash. Belgian roads are pretty dangerous with a mix of
"priorite a droite" and normal junctions. You will also be sued by the
state for employing illegal worker(s) if you get caught as well.

The other is if for example you fail to clear the path in front of your
house of snow or a workman falls off your roof and is injured they can
sue you. Belgians think nothing of suing neighbours this way.

Crikey, and everybody complains about how litigious 'murcans are. Sounds
like the primary national pastime there.

?-)

Not particularly - they only sue over *real* injuries as opposed to
coffee being too hot or being frightened by seeing the word "asbestos".

Napoleonic code is rather different to UK and US law so as an expat you
have to be aware of the most important differences.

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

I have no sympathy for McDonald's in that particular case.

If you Google for what injuries the poor woman suffered from the
nearly-boiling McDonald's coffee, you'd be a bit more sympathetic.
Hint: it landed directly in her lap. Third degree burns to the pink
bits, covering a wide area. She was over 80, and never really
recovered. (See e.g.
http://www.vanosteen.com/mcdonalds-coffee-lawsuit.htm .)

McD's had had over 700 reports of burns from their coffee (served in
large foam cups that become very unstable when they're that hot), and
had settled many of them for real money. And their corporate standard
temperature coffee was a good 20 degrees hotter than other places'.

The award was just under $3M, which seems pretty reasonable for a
pattern of gross negligence like that. US tort law is a mess, but that
case came out about right.

Cheers

Phil Hobbs

--
Dr Philip C D Hobbs
Principal Consultant
ElectroOptical Innovations LLC
Optics, Electro-optics, Photonics, Analog Electronics

160 North State Road #203
Briarcliff Manor NY 10510
845-480-2058

hobbs at electrooptical dot net
http://electrooptical.net

 

[Jeff Liebermann]

On Wed, 19 Sep 2012 19:00:56 -0700, josephkk
<joseph_barrett@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

On Sat, 15 Sep 2012 18:59:42 -0700, Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com
wrote:
With Obamacare, we'll all have insurance, but not medical care.

An extraordinarily succinct and concise summation.

Yet another summary by a doctor running for office:
"Obamacare Summed Up in One Sentence"
<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vdnY8r7_fLw>

--
Jeff Liebermann jeffl@cruzio.com
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

 

[Jon Kirwan]

On Thu, 20 Sep 2012 09:16:19 -0400, Phil Hobbs
<pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> wrote:

Martin Brown wrote:

On 20/09/2012 10:28, josephkk wrote:
On Tue, 18 Sep 2012 08:21:46 +0100, Martin Brown
|||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote:


The notes for expats in English make clear what insurances you should
have and how much it costs (comparatively little). The consequences of
not having it can be disastrous if someone claims against you.

What's illegal worker insurance? Or 3rd party claims insurance?
These are foreign to me.

OK. They do need some explanation but the concepts are simple.

If you employ someone (even *illegally* as some rich expats tend to do
for cleaners and gardeners) then you are automatically liable for any
injuries that they suffer on their way to work upto and including death
in a car crash. Belgian roads are pretty dangerous with a mix of
"priorite a droite" and normal junctions. You will also be sued by the
state for employing illegal worker(s) if you get caught as well.

The other is if for example you fail to clear the path in front of your
house of snow or a workman falls off your roof and is injured they can
sue you. Belgians think nothing of suing neighbours this way.

Crikey, and everybody complains about how litigious 'murcans are. Sounds
like the primary national pastime there.

?-)

Not particularly - they only sue over *real* injuries as opposed to
coffee being too hot or being frightened by seeing the word "asbestos".

Napoleonic code is rather different to UK and US law so as an expat you
have to be aware of the most important differences.

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

I have no sympathy for McDonald's in that particular case.

If you Google for what injuries the poor woman suffered from the
nearly-boiling McDonald's coffee, you'd be a bit more sympathetic.
Hint: it landed directly in her lap. Third degree burns to the pink
bits, covering a wide area. She was over 80, and never really
recovered. (See e.g.
http://www.vanosteen.com/mcdonalds-coffee-lawsuit.htm .)

McD's had had over 700 reports of burns from their coffee (served in
large foam cups that become very unstable when they're that hot), and
had settled many of them for real money. And their corporate standard
temperature coffee was a good 20 degrees hotter than other places'.

The award was just under $3M, which seems pretty reasonable for a
pattern of gross negligence like that. US tort law is a mess, but that
case came out about right.

Cheers

Phil Hobbs

Completely agree with you. I also spent time studying the
details laid out by both sides, years back, because this
keeps on coming back. Despite everyone's knee jerk reaction
when ignorant about what actually took place, this one
actually was case that should be used to show when the courts
get things right, not wrong.

Jon