Trailer axle help

typed in rec.crafts.metalworking the following:


    Fnord, we're in the wrong field. We could run companies into the ground for a fraction of what those bozos are costing the companies.
    Too many "Business Majors". I want more people in charge like the class mate vote "least likely to succeed." The guy who shows up at the 20 year reunion with the fancy car, the gorgeous wife, and the expensive suit. When asked what he does, says "I buy stuff for a dollar, and sell it for two. Amazing how that one percent adds up."
tschus pyotr
--
pyotr filipivich
We will drink no whiskey before its nine.
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
This dates back to just before the 2010 election, but this the first time that I heard about it. It seems unbelievable, but I can't find the hoax if there is one. If you can give me a logical reason Obama would have turned down IBM's offer, I will be very grateful to you.
IBM offered to help reduce Medicare for free
IBM offered to help reduce Medicare Fraud for free Sam Palmisano, IBM CEO
What if I told you that the Chairman and CEO of IBM, Samuel J. Palmisano, approached President Obama and members of his administration before the healthcare bill debates with a plan that would reduce healthcare expenditures by $900 billion? Given the Obama Administration�s adamancy that the United States of America simply had to make healthcare (read: health insurance) affordable for even the most dedicated welfare recipient, one would think he would have leaned forward in his chair, cupped his ear and said, �Tell me more!� And what if I told you that the cost to the federal government for this program was nothing, zip, nada, zilch?
And, what if I told you that, in the end and after two meetings, President Obama and his team, instead of embracing a program that was proven to save money and one that was projected to save almost one trillion dollars ? a private sector program costing the taxpayers nothing, zip, nada, zilch ? said, �Thanks but no thanks� and then embarked on passing one of the most despised pieces of legislation in UShistory?
Well, it�s all true. see video: http://video.foxnews.com/v/4366002/did-white-house-snub-fraud-fighter /
Samuel J. Palmisano, the Chairman of the Board and CEO for IBM, said in a recent Wall Street Journalinterview that he offered to provide the Obama Administration with a program that would curb healthcare claims fraud and abuse by almost one trillion dollars but the Obama White House turned the offer down.
Mr. Palmisano is quoted as saying during a taping (click here to see ) of The Wall Street Journal's Viewpoints program on September 14, 2010:
"We could have improved the quality and reduced the cost of the healthcare system by $900 billion...I said we would do it for free to prove that it works. They turned us down."
A second meeting between Mr. Palmisano and the Obama Administration took place two weeks later, with no change in the Obama Administration's stance. A call placed to IBM on October 8, 2010, by FOX News confirmed, via a spokesperson, that Mr Palmisano stands by his statement.
Speaking with FOX News' Stuart Varney, Mort Zuckerman, Editor-in-Chief of US News & World Report, said, "It's a little bit puzzling because I think there is a huge amount of both fraud and inefficiency that American business is a lot more comfortable with and more effective in trying to reduce. And this is certainly true because the IBM people have studied this very carefully. And when Palmisano went to the White House and made that proposal, it was based upon a lot of work and it was not accepted. And it's really puzzling...These are very, very responsible people. They don't have a political ax to grind.. They are very familiar with the subject; they understand exactly what the issues are."
Given the fact that Mr. Obama�s own Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services actuary debunked the claim that health insurance costs would diminish over the next decade and given that the budget deficits for 2010 and 2011 are in the $1.2 trillion?$1.4 trillion ballpark, the question begs to be asked: Why would Mr. Obama balk at a sure-thing savings of almost $1 trillion?
Cost projections prepared by economists at the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), revealed the nation's healthcare spending, as a share of the economy, will be 0.3 percentage points higher in 2019 than estimated before the law was passed. That CMS report, published September 9, 2010, in the journal Health Affairs, also revealed healthcare spending will grow by an average of 6.3 percent each year over the next decade, whereas pre-reform projections pegged annual growth at 6.1 percent.
CMS actuaries also say that Medicare cuts mandated by the law are unrealistic and unsustainable. An April 22, 2010, CMS report about the financial and coverage effects of selected provisions of the new law estimates that about 15 percent of hospitals and other healthcare providers could lose money treating Medicare beneficiaries as a result of the proposed cuts.
And the Congressional Budget Office is projecting that the deficit for the 2010 budget year, which ended Sept. 30, will total $1.29 trillion. The Obama administration has projected that the deficit for the 2011 budget year, which began on Oct. 1, will climb to $1.4 trillion and that over the next decade, it will total $8.47 trillion.
So, again, I ask you, with the main issue being the economy, including the audacious spending habits of elected officials in Washington DC, why would Mr. Obama and his team balk at facilitating not only the saving of almost $1 trillion in healthcare expenditures, but the opportunity to affect an issue victory in the 2010 midterm election cycle? Mr. Zuckerman concluded,
"When you are in a situation where this country is facing a huge deficit and where anybody who knows anything at all about the healthcare system knows how much waste, fraud and abuse is involved in that system...not to take this offer up, frankly, does not make sense."
Mr. Zuckerman is correct, but only to a point. It doesn�t make sense if Mr. Obama is trying to reduce waste and fraud, and make health insurance affordable for all Americans. It does make sense if those were never the goals in the first place.
As I wrote in an article titled, Cloward, Piven & Obamacare, "...the goal of the Progressives is to crash the system; to overwhelm the system to such an extent that it fails. It is at this moment of failure that Progressives believe they can enter the situation as the knight in shining armor. It is at this particular moment of vulnerability that Progressives believe the American public will acquiesce to the false choice of something is better than nothing; to a government-run universal healthcare plan to rescue the devastated American healthcare system, a system Progressives themselves threw into chaos, courtesy of their ridiculous health insurance reform law".
As an aside, keeping this plan in mind, it makes perfect sense that Progressives and Liberal Democrats wouldn't waste their time reading the massive health insurance reform bill. They never intended for it to be around long enough for it to matter. It is one thing to be ( as a good many elected officials in Washington DC are ) arrogant, self-absorbed spendthrifts, so detached from the actualities of what Americans require and want from their government. It is quite another to willfully abuse the system ( and the American people ) in an attempt to bring about and ideological change ( a fundamental transformation ) of the very system of government that has made the United States the most prosperous nation in the history of the Western Civilization and the last best hope for freedom and liberty for all in the world.
In Mr. Obama�s shunning of a private sector program that would have saved our country almost $1 trillion in healthcare expenditures, presented to him as he declared a "crisis in healthcare ", he proves two things beyond any doubt: that he is anti-Capitalist and anti-private sector in nature and that he can no longer be trusted to tell the truth in both his political declarations or espoused goals.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Apparently, a fabrication. This is a young lady after my own heart:
http://message.snopes.com/showthread.php?tp746
--
Ed Huntress



Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
I dunno, Ed.
Ok, it's Fox news, but it's also from Wall Street News and IBM itself. So I doubt it's a fabrication...
http://video.foxnews.com/v/4366002/did-white-house-snub-fraud-fighter /
--

Richard Lamb
http://www.home.earthlink.net/~cavelamb
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

She has enough in there to suggest it was edited all out of shape. I'd certainly want to see that full interview.
--
Ed Huntress



Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
That looks an awful lot like IBM CEO Samuel Palmisano... But, of course, it could be a left wing plot...
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

About five or ten seconds of interview clipped out of a much longer one.. And you have to suspect it's Breitbarted -- cut to make it say what they want.
Look, here's where I got suspicious about the whole thing. Palmisano says he can cut $900 billion of fraud from the health care system. Even assuming he's talking about all of the privately insured health care as well as all of the publicly insured, something is seriously whacky here. The outside estimate for fraud in Medicare plus Medicaid, by industry experts, not the government, is around $60 billion. And the organization most knowledgeable about it (and most likely to inflate the number), the National Health Care Anti-Fraud Association (NHCAA), says it's as high as $100 billion for the whole US health care system, private and public combined.
Why would Palmisano say something like that if he is "serious," as the conspiracy theorists on Fox said?
Well, if you watched the WSJ video, you saw something else: Palisano was now talking about saving $200 billion in fraud, and the other $700 billion was unspecified -- although part of it apparently involved requiring discounts from pharma companies. That's illegal for the federal government to do under present law. Then, when asked by WSJ why it didn't fly, he says that it "didn't align with the administration's priorities." At that time, the priority was to extend health care to everyone.
http://online.wsj.com/video/viewpoints-working-with-the-obama-white-house/5A0ED9CD-CFC8-4898-8ADB-B0B8196D7E5A.html?KEYWORDS=palmisano
My feeling is that IBM's proposal included a lot of things that are unstated here, or you couldn't get anywhere near $900 billion. It may be that they would require new legislation, such as changing the law for negotiating with pharma companies. And the government already had a full load of health care legislation on their plate.
And in my gut, I think the administration didn't believe them. You know I spent some years working in health care writing and promotion. *I* don't believe them when they say they can save $900 billion. That's 1/3 of the total costs of all US health care. If they had something like that, the WSJ would have it in 70-point screaming type on the front page, not buried in a business video.
It's fishy.
--
Ed Huntress






Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Ed Huntress wrote:

And have some other fool pay for it, right?

http://online.wsj.com/video/viewpoints-working-with-the-obama-white-house/5A0ED9CD-CFC8-4898-8ADB-B0B8196D7E5A.html?KEYWORDS=palmisano
Hrump. I couldn't get your video to play... :(
I didn't get a sense of what time frame that was for. I seriously doubt it was one year...

If you think so. I think the whole health care bru-ha-ha is fishy.
We have a serious financial collapse - and the president wants to give everybody bandaides?
It's fishy all right...
--

Richard Lamb
http://www.home.earthlink.net/~cavelamb
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Pay for what? You're wading into a deep subject there. If you want the perspective of an independent policy institute on what it will cost, here's a good one:
http://www.urban.org/health_policy/url.cfm?IDA2181

Too bad. The more times I listen to it, the more I realize Palisano doesn't know what he's talking about. He says it would require "no legislative changes." When the WSJ pointed out to him that his discount idea had been squashed in Congress by the pharmaceutical companies, his response was, "then use IBM's discount." He doesn't seem to understand that the whole idea was outlawed for the government. He really seemed surprised when the WSJ interviewer told him about it. I think maybe Palisano is a big talker...

Palisano is vague about it in the WSJ video.

Wait a minute. You may not be following what's going on here. Be patient for a minute.
These are rough figures I'm pulling from memory, but they're in the ballpark. We spend about $2.7 trillion on health care. Over half of that is government paying for the insurance, as it has been for some years. That's Medicare, Medicaid, VA health care, government employees' health care at all levels, and the Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP).
Around 1/3 is private insurance, mostly company sponsored or company paid.
The rest is uninsured. Some small percentage of this is paid out of the pockets of private individuals. But the big bills, and many of the small bills, are paid by our taxes. That's the Gunner types for the big bills, and the uninsured poor visiting emergency rooms for the small ones. It's expensive as hell and the outcomes are poor because there is no preventive care for those people, and the chronic care is almost nonexistent, except as a new "emergency" each time they go to the ER. It's based on systems made for handling emergencies, and every sore throat gets the ER treatment.
So we're paying for it already. And we're paying much more than we would if it was all under one program, with preventive and continuing care available for everyone.
Obama's program is all about getting it all under that roof, while not interfering with private programs that people are happy with and want to keep. This has the benefits implied above, plus it puts big-time pricing power into the equation to control costs -- eventually, if the Republicans will go along with it. There are lots of plans for controlling costs out there, besides IBM's, but there is no authority able to put them into action.
And the political will is weak. My son interned with the guy who wrote Medicare Part D. He's a Republican, then Staff Director of the House Ways and Means Health Subcommittee. He says the plan originally was to allow Medicare to negotiate, but he wasn't allowed to write it into the bill. It's a long story. That guy now runs a health care lobbying firm, BTW. <g>
So, do you see the picture? We're already paying for it and we have been for years. We're paying more than we should have to. The PPACA (the health care reform act) has some costs that go up and down, but the point is to start going down as soon as possible.
Again, we'll be paying for no more than we're paying now. That's the only way to really get costs under control. And, at the same time (and the real motivator for most of the advocates), to simultaneously clean up the act, getting ordinary medical care out of the ERs and improving preventive and chronic care.
The OMB has made forecasts that contradict much of what the Tea Partiers are saying -- because the teabaggers generally don't know what they're talking about, and those that do are spinning it all to hell for philosophical reasons rather than fiscal ones.
That think tank I pointed to above, the Urban Institute, has studied a lot of the questions surrounding health care in general and the PPACA in particular. They write abstracts so you can get the bottom line in a paragraph or two:
http://www.urban.org/health_policy/health_care_reform/Everything-You-Wanted-to-Know.cfm
Don't listen to the blowhards who are running for office. Don't listen to the teabag ignoramuses. Read some independent analysis.
--
Ed Huntress



Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Ed Huntress wrote:
Ya'll forgive me one more time?

Spend 2.7 Trillion dollars a year on health care?
Independent analyze that, Ed... Because I have troubles counting that high!
2.7 Trillion bucks? 2,700,000,000,000 (can that possibly be right???) 300 million people? 300,000,000
Per capita? $9000 a year for every man, woman, and child in America?
I'll big time agree with you about it being fishy... The oil companies should be so lucky.
No wonder it became the political Holy Grail...
--

Richard Lamb
http://www.home.earthlink.net/~cavelamb
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Get used to it. <g>

You got it. If you're going to do this budget stuff, work in scientific notation. It will keep you from going cross-eyed.

Yup. It's a bummer, isn't it? We're closing in on 18% of GDP, and, as Krugman says, we're number one! In health care spending, that is. d8-)

The real killer is the growth rate. Health care does not follow the usual pattern of costs as technology improves. It does the opposite.
--
Ed Huntress


>
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Ok, I broke down and contacted IBM's press department to see if I can get an update or background. I'll let you know.
--
Ed Huntress



Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Man, IBM's press office is quick to respond. I have the story. I am not going to repeat it in public, nor in e-mail.. If you want the whole thing, I'll send you my phone number and we can discuss it.
What I will say, though, is that Fox screwed this one up royally. The Wall Street Journal really dropped the ball. And the bloggers are misleading, unethical, and irresponsible -- but we knew that already.
The bottom line is that the savings was projected to be $200 billion over ten years, distributed between Medicare, Medicaid, food stamps, federal grants, and income tax refunds. Yes, that's right. The $900 billion is also projected over ten years, and includes ALL federal government activities, plus things like selling off thousands of government buildings and leasing them back, and increasing government fees wherever possible. <g>
So Mr. Palisano misspoke a bit. More than a bit. And the WSJ and Fox turned it all on its head.
If you want to read the report he was basing it on, it's here:
http://www.techceocouncil.org/clientuploads/reports/TCC_One_Trillion_Reasons_FINAL.pdf
What a screw-up, huh?
(Why, oh why, did the WSJ, US News and World Report, and Fox News not do what I just did? I'll have to reprimand them when I see them...)
--
Ed Huntress



Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Politicians don't want a clean efficient system.
They want a system they can profit from...
For that you need inefficiency and corruption.
Kinda like Wall Street?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
I'm seriously starting to believe that Obama had something to do with stryped's axle problem ........................

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Steve B wrote:

Oh my! Sorry Steve (et al) I got sucked into that one.
Apologies
--

Richard Lamb
http://www.home.earthlink.net/~cavelamb
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Tue, 31 May 2011 08:38:36 -0700, "Steve B"

Damn. You owe me a monitor and keyboard.

Somebody else tell Iggy. He doesn't believe me, thinking that Obama can do no wrong while telling no tales.
-- Education is when you read the fine print. Experience is what you get if you don't. -- Pete Seeger
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

http://message.snopes.com/showthread.php?tp746
Actually, thi yet another chain email, has to do more with Republicans' gullibility (for those gullible ones who have not verified the veracity of that chain e-mail), or lack of honesty (for those who have verified it, but dishonestly reposted it anyway).
This is a perfect example of what I mentioned -- Republicans spreading lies via false chain e-mails. This had a lot to do with me losing trust in the Republican party. I mean, how can I have trust in a party of liars and suckers?
The rule of thumb is very simple: if you receive a pro-Republican chain email, chances are great that it is a lie. Reposting it without triple checking is hazardous to your reputation.
If those emails were not lies, they would appear in more reputable sources instead of emails.
All you need to do so is visit any of the fact checking websites.
i
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Tue, 31 May 2011 19:03:13 -0500, Ignoramus17069

Where are you now with the Democrats? Shit, they're far worse. I'm disgusted with both parties.

You mean "All you need to do so is visit any of the liberals' fact checking websites.", right? <sigh>
Rule for all of us: Don't believe everything you read on the Internet or in email.
-- Education is when you read the fine print. Experience is what you get if you don't. -- Pete Seeger
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Just a few minutes ago, you seemed to be disgusted only with Democrats.

Try snopes.com.

That would always be a good start.
But, as of yet, I have not seen an honest Republican chain email, and I have seen a lot.
i
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Polytechforum.com is a website by engineers for engineers. It is not affiliated with any of manufacturers or vendors discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.