October 22, 2004 FACT CHECK Taking a Closer Look at Bush’s Attacks on Kerry’s Health Care Plan By DAVID E. ROSENBAUM In his stump speeches, his debates with Senator John Kerry and his television advertisements, President Bush has maintained that Mr. Kerry is proposing a government-run health care system. Outside experts who have studied the Kerry proposal say that is not the case. WHAT BUSH SAYS In Downingtown, Pa., yesterday, Mr. Bush said the Kerry plan "involves bigger and more intrusive government." He said it would "expand the government’s health care rolls by nearly 22 million," leading to "the largest expansion of government health care in American history." He said "8 out of 10 people" who obtained health coverage under Mr. Kerry’s plan "would be placed on a government program" and small businesses would have the incentive to drop their private insurance and throw people into government programs. He said the Kerry plan would cost $1.2 trillion. THE FACTS Mr. Kerry’s plan has three main elements: an expansion of Medicaid and the State Children’s Health Insurance Program, both programs for the poor, so that all children and more low-income adults would be covered; an arrangement so individuals and small businesses not now eligible for group plans could buy private insurance now available to federal employees; and government rebates to employers to cover most of the cost of catastrophic health insurance claims (over $30,000 per beneficiary in 2006). Asked whether this would amount to a governmentrun health system in the United States, John Sheils, a vice president of the Lewin Group, an independent consulting firm, said, "No, I don’t think so." Mr. Sheils said that "97 percent of the people who have insurance now would have the same coverage." The Lewin Group specializes in health issues, and its finding that the Kerry plan would put more than 20 million new people under government health coverage was mentioned by Mr. Bush in last week’s presidential debate. The vast majority of the 20 million would be children in low-income families. It would hardly be the largest expansion of government health insurance in history, much less than the introduction of Medicare and Medicaid in the 1960’s and involving fewer people than even Mr. Bush’s legislation enacted last year to offer prescription drug coverage under Medicare. The Kerry plan would actually make health insurance less expensive for small businesses because they would be able to take a tax credit to offset 50 percent of the cost of offering employees coverage and because the catastrophic coverage would lower the payments for premiums. The cost of the Kerry plan is a point of dispute. The Kerry campaign puts the cost at $653 billion over 10 years. Whatever the price tag, most if not all of it would be offset by Mr. Kerry’s proposal to repeal tax cuts for the 2 percent of taxpayers with incomes over $200,000. _____ Copyright 2004 The New York Times Company        Posted via TITANnews – Uncensored Newsgroups Access              >>>> at http://www.TitanNews.com <<<< -=Every Newsgroup – Anonymous, UNCENSORED, BROADBAND Downloads=-

Response:

C’mon, Bruce.  This isn’t even challenging! – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> WHAT BUSH SAYS > In Downingtown, Pa., yesterday, Mr. Bush said the Kerry plan "involves > bigger and more intrusive > government." He said it would "expand the government’s health care rolls > by nearly 22 million," > leading to "the largest expansion of government health care in American > history." He said "8 out of > 10 people" who obtained health coverage under Mr. Kerry’s plan "would be > placed on a government > program" and small businesses would have the incentive to drop their > private insurance and throw > people into government programs. He said the Kerry plan would cost $1.2 > trillion. > THE FACTS > Mr. Kerry’s plan has three main elements: an expansion of Medicaid and the > State Children’s Health > Insurance Program, both programs for the poor, so that all children and > more low-income adults > would be covered; an arrangement so individuals and small businesses not > now eligible for group > plans could buy private insurance now available to federal employees; and > government rebates to > employers to cover most of the cost of catastrophic health insurance > claims (over $30,000 per > beneficiary in 2006).

That certainly describes a "bigger and more intrusive government", to me! > Asked whether this would amount to a governmentrun health system in the > United States, John Sheils, > a vice president of the Lewin Group, an independent consulting firm, said, > "No, I don’t think so." > Mr. Sheils said that "97 percent of the people who have insurance now > would have the same > coverage."

"I don’t think so", is hardly an emphatic "yes", is it, Bruce?  If government is paying the premiums for all the poor people and children, and paying the medical expenses for all the Medicaid recipients, how is that not a "government run health system", Bruce?  In other words, if government is paying the tab, does government not set the standards for care?  They certainly do, with the current Medicare/Medicaid systems.  So, 97 percent of us will realize no benefit from Kerry’s program.  I wonder if that’s because we’re the ones expected to pay for it. > The Lewin Group specializes in health issues, and its finding that the > Kerry plan would put more > than 20 million new people under government health coverage was mentioned > by Mr. Bush in last > week’s presidential debate.

So, Bush was off by a couple million.  That doesn’t change the facts, at all.  Kerry will add ~20 million to government health coverage rolls. > The vast majority of the 20 million would be children in low-income > families. It would hardly be > the largest expansion of government health insurance in history, much less > than the introduction of > Medicare and Medicaid in the 1960’s and involving fewer people than even > Mr. Bush’s legislation > enacted last year to offer prescription drug coverage under Medicare.

So, the vast majority of the newly covered lives do not even earn an income. Who will pay for their coverage, Bruce?  You want to argue that Bush was wrong about Kerry’s plan being the largest expansion of government health insurance, simply because the liberal socialist Democrats had enacted an even larger plan, previously?  You’re serious about this?  This is exactly what’s wrong with liberal socialist Democrats!  And, they’re so accustomed to it, they don’t even realize when they’re doing it! > The Kerry plan would actually make health insurance less expensive for > small businesses because > they would be able to take a tax credit to offset 50 percent of the cost > of offering employees > coverage and because the catastrophic coverage would lower the payments > for premiums.

How will lowering premiums make insurance companies more viable?  They’re already just barely scraping by, and cutting to the bone to lower costs. Who will administer these programs once the carriers have succumbed to insolvency?  Won’t low wage employees opt for the government plan, because they can actually afford it?  The businesses that don’t currently offer coverage to employees are the same small businesses (over $200,000 income) that will taxed to pay for this boondoggle! > The cost of the Kerry plan is a point of dispute. The Kerry campaign puts > the cost at $653 billion > over 10 years. Whatever the price tag, most if not all of it would be > offset by Mr. Kerry’s > proposal to repeal tax cuts for the 2 percent of taxpayers with incomes > over $200,000.

Ah, so it’s another "soak the rich" scheme, is it?  Let’s call it what it really is: another liberal socialist Democrat tax increase. Let’s get this straight: no one has a right to healthcare coverage, and the federal government has no Constitutional authority to provide healthcare coverage. — Kevin -=#=- www.freerepublic.com www.glennbeck.com www.factcheck.org

Response:

>C’mon, Bruce.  This isn’t even challenging!

Smackdown below, Simpleton — you’re still proving yourself unworthy of serious consideration! – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> WHAT BUSH SAYS > In Downingtown, Pa., yesterday, Mr. Bush said the Kerry plan "involves > bigger and more intrusive > government." He said it would "expand the government’s health care rolls > by nearly 22 million," > leading to "the largest expansion of government health care in American > history." He said "8 out of > 10 people" who obtained health coverage under Mr. Kerry’s plan "would be > placed on a government > program" and small businesses would have the incentive to drop their > private insurance and throw > people into government programs. He said the Kerry plan would cost $1.2 > trillion. > THE FACTS > Mr. Kerry’s plan has three main elements: an expansion of Medicaid and the > State Children’s Health > Insurance Program, both programs for the poor, so that all children and > more low-income adults > would be covered; an arrangement so individuals and small businesses not > now eligible for group > plans could buy private insurance now available to federal employees; and > government rebates to > employers to cover most of the cost of catastrophic health insurance > claims (over $30,000 per > beneficiary in 2006). >That certainly describes a "bigger and more intrusive government", to me!

That because you’re an early nineteenth century type who believes conscience is a weakness and that market forces are worthy of worship alongside the wrathful God of the Hebrew Bible. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> Asked whether this would amount to a governmentrun health system in the > United States, John Sheils, > a vice president of the Lewin Group, an independent consulting firm, said, > "No, I don’t think so." > Mr. Sheils said that "97 percent of the people who have insurance now > would have the same > coverage." >"I don’t think so", is hardly an emphatic "yes", is it, Bruce?  If >government is paying the premiums for all the poor people and children, and >paying the medical expenses for all the Medicaid recipients, how is that not >a "government run health system", Bruce?  In other words, if government is >paying the tab, does government not set the standards for care?  They >certainly do, with the current Medicare/Medicaid systems.  So, 97 percent of >us will realize no benefit from Kerry’s program.  I wonder if that’s because >we’re the ones expected to pay for it.

Wonder away, the expenses are noted further on and covered by a return to Clinton era tax rates on the $200,000+/annum crowd. > The Lewin Group specializes in health issues, and its finding that the > Kerry plan would put more > than 20 million new people under government health coverage was mentioned > by Mr. Bush in last > week’s presidential debate. >So, Bush was off by a couple million.  That doesn’t change the facts, at >all.  Kerry will add ~20 million to government health coverage rolls.

You’d rather have them uninsured and taxing emergency rooms and local charities — or untreated, suffering and out spreading contagion?  Let’s just spread the burden a bit and do our best to get these folks employment that includes coverage — then eveybody wins! > The vast majority of the 20 million would be children in low-income > families. It would hardly be > the largest expansion of government health insurance in history, much less > than the introduction of > Medicare and Medicaid in the 1960’s and involving fewer people than even > Mr. Bush’s legislation > enacted last year to offer prescription drug coverage under Medicare. >So, the vast majority of the newly covered lives do not even earn an income.

Well, that certainly disqualifies them for a chance to live long enough to "earn an income," doesn’t it?   Why not let them die — after all, they’re not productive anyway! >Who will pay for their coverage, Bruce?  You want to argue that Bush was >wrong about Kerry’s plan being the largest expansion of government health >insurance, simply because the liberal socialist Democrats had enacted an >even larger plan, previously?  You’re serious about this?  This is exactly >what’s wrong with liberal socialist Democrats!  And, they’re so accustomed >to it, they don’t even realize when they’re doing it!

It’s covered and it’s good for the country.  You righty assholes would rather stick local institutions with the bill just like you’d rather imprison people than educate them effectively. > The Kerry plan would actually make health insurance less expensive for > small businesses because > they would be able to take a tax credit to offset 50 percent of the cost > of offering employees > coverage and because the catastrophic coverage would lower the payments > for premiums. >How will lowering premiums make insurance companies more viable?  They’re >already just barely scraping by, and cutting to the bone to lower costs.

The only reason they’re "barely scraping by" is that they’re bad investors — insurance companies invest premiums and whenever their investmentments tank they raise premiums.   They’re investment houses masquerading as service providers! With lower premiums they can attract more business (it’s a market force, remember?) without fear that five- and six-figure claims will make them unprofitable — so they can stay away from risky investments.  Everybody wins except your parents, Nathan Bedford Forrest and Ayn Rand! >Who will administer these programs once the carriers have succumbed to >insolvency?  

They won’t unless they’re incompetently managed — Kerry’s plan lowers their risks, and more competent companies will gladly take up the slack! >Won’t low wage employees opt for the government plan, because >they can actually afford it?  The businesses that don’t currently offer >coverage to employees are the same small businesses (over $200,000 income) >that will taxed to pay for this boondoggle!

Any viable business that big paying at the personal income tax rate needs a new accountant. > The cost of the Kerry plan is a point of dispute. The Kerry campaign puts > the cost at $653 billion > over 10 years. Whatever the price tag, most if not all of it would be > offset by Mr. Kerry’s > proposal to repeal tax cuts for the 2 percent of taxpayers with incomes > over $200,000. >Ah, so it’s another "soak the rich" scheme, is it?  Let’s call it what it >really is: another liberal socialist Democrat tax increase.

Back to the sensible Clinton- era rates when everyone did better works for me! >Let’s get this straight: no one has a right to healthcare coverage, and the >federal government has no Constitutional authority to provide healthcare >coverage.

As if you would know — you’re multiple generations of SCOTUS decisions behind the eightball when it comes to constitutional jurisprudence….        Posted via TITANnews – Uncensored Newsgroups Access              >>>> at http://www.TitanNews.com <<<< -=Every Newsgroup – Anonymous, UNCENSORED, BROADBAND Downloads=-

Response:

> Smackdown below, > Simpleton — you’re still > proving yourself unworthy > of serious consideration!

You do nothing to redeem your position, below, Bruce. > That because you’re an > early nineteenth century > type who believes > conscience is a weakness > and that market forces > are worthy of worship > alongside the wrathful > God of the Hebrew Bible.

No, it’s because what Kerry proposes is "bigger and more intrusive", and it comes from "government".  What does "expansion" mean?  What does "more" mean?  Is that not the same as "bigger"?  This is not about ideology, it’s about a massive expansion of government services, and your immediately resorting to ad hominem attacks is indicative that you have no intention of defending this particular pantload. > Wonder away, the expenses > are noted further on and > covered by a return to > Clinton era tax rates on > the $200,000+/annum crowd.

So, not even an attempt to defend the truth that this is a "government run health system", or to show how this Kerry plan is any different from the current systems, which are government run health systems. > You’d rather have them > uninsured and taxing > emergency rooms and > local charities — or > untreated, suffering > and out spreading > contagion?  Let’s just > spread the burden a bit > and do our best to get > these folks employment > that includes coverage > — then eveybody wins!

Yes!  I’d much rather have local charities and hospitals managing this issue than the federal government!  How does anything you posted (ever, for that matter!) address "get(ting) these folks employment"?  Here’s a hint: It doesn’t.  It’s not about employment; it’s about socialized medicine!  You’re so transparent, Bruce.  "Spread the burden"?  How does forcing the high-producers to pay for the healthcare of the low-producers "spread the burden", Bruce?  It’s just a soak-the-rich scheme!  It’s nothing but class warfare!  Why not let those who use government services pay for government services?  They could work in the government-run emergency rooms, and the government-run STD clinics, to help defray the cost of their healthcare. You’re not interested in finding employment; you’re only interested in getting the government more deeply involved in the health care delivery system. >So, the vast majority of the newly covered lives do not even earn an >income. > Well, that certainly > disqualifies them for a > chance to live long > enough to "earn an > income," doesn’t it? > Why not let them die — > after all, they’re not > productive anyway!

If you say so!  I’d say that their health care is the responsibility of their parents, not the taxpayers.  If you can’t afford to raise a child, and keep it healthy, why do you produce children?  Why would we continually encourage that behavior, knowing that doing so only increases the frequency of the behavior?  You can never, ever subsidize your way to responsible behavior.  Even you know that, Bruce. > It’s covered and it’s good > for the country.  You > righty assholes would > rather stick local > institutions with the bill > just like you’d rather > imprison people than > educate them effectively.

How is it covered?  It’s not covered until Congress passes a new tax increase.  That hasn’t happened, and it’s not likely to happen, Bruce. You’re making this up, as you go, and you can’t support even the most basic tenets of the plan you’re touting.  Kerry’s health care proposal will not be funded by a tax increase, so it’ll go into the general budget, and increase the deficit.  This is not a "plan", it’s a scam! > The only reason they’re > "barely scraping by" is > that they’re bad > investors — insurance > companies invest > premiums and whenever > their investmentments > tank they raise premiums. > They’re investment houses > masquerading as service > providers!

They also deliver products, and services, and they meet the ever-increasing requirements of state and federal regulators.  Do you have any idea what HIPPA is costing the healthcare industry?  The reason they’re tanking is because "we" require that our health insurance cover every medical issue we encounter, and the costs have skyrocketed due to frivolous lawsuits and unreasonable jury awards.  If we applied the same standards to auto insurance that we do to healthcare coverage, we’d be getting reimbursed for the cost of gasoline, flat tires, and windshield washer fluid.  Healthcare insurance is not insurance, at all.  It’s just a medical bill paying club. For instance, why are the routine costs of pregnancy covered under most healthcare plans?  Pregnancy is not an illness, and it shouldn’t be unexpected.  If a couple cannot afford the routine costs of pregnancy, why do they expect that I, or you, or any other person, would want to assume those costs, for them?  It’s ridiculous, and, as we’re discovering, not viable.  Kerry’s plan will make the situation much, much worse, and in very rapid fashion. > With lower premiums they > can attract more business > (it’s a market force, > remember?) without fear > that five- and six-figure > claims will make them > unprofitable — so they > can stay away from risky > investments.  Everybody > wins except your parents, > Nathan Bedford Forrest > and Ayn Rand!

No, with lower premiums, they will have to reduce services and products to the point where they are no longer competitive, and then they’ll file for bankruptcy, and liquidate their assets.  I’ve seen it happen.  It’s not pretty.  Shifting the cost of catastrophic coverage to government will not reduce the frequency or the exhorbitant cost of catastrophic claims.  If history is any indicator, we can expect that costs will skyrocket, and the taxpayers will have to forego their own healthcare coverage in order to afford the new taxes made necessary by socialized catastrophic coverage. You know, even though it’s fun to attack me, it shows that you have nothing with which to support your assertion.  As usual. >Who will administer these programs once the carriers have succumbed to >insolvency? > They won’t unless they’re > incompetently managed — > Kerry’s plan lowers their > risks, and more competent > companies will gladly > take up the slack!

If healthcare insurers can’t offer catastrophic coverage, their revenue will drop, as well.  Who will insure the government against these claims?  Are you suggesting a new "trust fund" for socialized catastrophic claims, on a par with Social Security?  Why will introducing the bureaucracy of the federal government lower the cost of catastrophic claims?  How will government limit the cost of catastrophic claims and jury awards, and why is it better for the federal government to administer these claims than a private insurer?  Kerry’s plan is riddled with inconsistencies, and you’ve done nothing to clarify any of them. >Won’t low wage employees opt for the government plan, because >they can actually afford it?  The businesses that don’t currently offer >coverage to employees are the same small businesses (over $200,000 income) >that will taxed to pay for this boondoggle! > Any viable business that > big paying at the personal > income tax rate needs a > new accountant.

I’m sorry, Bruce, but that’s just a stupid statement.  I wonder why you don’t address the facts, though? > Back to the sensible Clinton- > era rates when everyone did > better works for me!

It’s a tax increase. >Let’s get this straight: no one has a right to healthcare coverage, and >the >federal government has no Constitutional authority to provide healthcare >coverage. > As if you would know — > you’re multiple generations > of SCOTUS decisions behind > the eightball when it comes > to constitutional > jurisprudence….

Ok, Bruce, just for fun, why don’t you point to one Supreme Court decision that authorizes Congress to provide healthcare coverage to anyone that’s not a federal government employee? — Kevin -=#=- www.freerepublic.com www.glennbeck.com www.factcheck.org

Response:

I’ve been playing it all day today Ian I cant put it down In fact I am gonna give it another blast now – it is 23:18 here so the neighbours will be impressed!!!! It is a light as a feather yet it sounds so full and rounded with a lot of tonal versatility The neck is really really fast and comfortable I have adjusted it slightly though – when Jimmy set it up he set the Schaller 2000 bridge to maximum string spacing, but I have brought it all in a bit The adjustment has made absolutely no difference to the playability – it is still 100% fantastic I shall give it a week and then post how I have got on with it Acebass (Matthew) PS If in the meantime you contact Jimmy for further info, plese let him know you got the reference from me as I want him to know how much appreciate this piece of craftsmanship

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> I make that

> A lot of telemarketers has been fined.  Just complain.  It is working.  To > bad there are exemptions for politians and charities.  Man tomorrow is the > mayor election…

No, don’t complain, it is A WASTE OF TIME. The law DOES NOT COVER situations like the one described by the original poster. You’re trying to put a nail in a wall to hang up a picture, and using a screwdriver instead of a hammer to put in the nail – it’s the WRONG TOOL FOR THE JOB. — JustThe.net Internet & New Media Services, Apple Valley, CA PGP: C57E 8B25 F994 D6D0 5F6B B961 EA08 9410 E3AE 35ED Domain Names, $9.95/yr, great service: http://DomainNames.JustThe.net/

Response:

> I’ve had this number since it went into service (no one had it before > me).  The number is on all my business material.  My old clients have > this number & may call out of the blue.  There are automated functions > set up to send data to my mobile phone. Changing my number really > isn’t an option.

Just got a terms of service document from my mobile network (Fido in Canada). It clearly states that the number does not belong to you and that should it be necessary, the network reserves the right to change your number (think area code changes for instance). Really, your best bet for both your life and the $ aspect would be to accept to change your number and the guilty company to pay all expenses related to that change. You could also pay to have the old number kept on some automated answering service that announces your name and your new number. (so people calling expecting voice mail wouldn’t bother with the second number, but old time customers would know how to reach you on your new number). > For calls at night, calls while working for another client, calls in > the shower, in church, movies, library? For time spent trying to > diagnose the original issue & hours spent trying to find the right > person in the company to understand the problem?

If you can show that the only inbound calls to that number are for business and emergency services only, (previous bills would help with this), then yes, you could argue that if in the past, you were getting few calls, but 100% important, which meant that you would step out of shower if it rang, and that now, it rings so often that you are constantly disturbed but must still take each call serously in case it is a serious one, then you should be compensated. But my guess is that paying for your number to be changed would be the type of action the guilty company would accept. It is much harder to quantify the costs of you having to step out of shower, or disturbing everyone at the church. What you could require though is that the guilty company immediatly put a block on all calls made from their network to your phone network.

Response:

Actually, that number belonged to my friends father.  They didn’t get that many calls because he lives in Northern Ontario.  How many people would have used area code 705 when calling?  The problem was that most of the calls happened after around 1AM when the bars closed and some drunk guy thought it would be funny to call.  He didn’t like the idea of having his number changed but that was the only thing that could be done. G M

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> There was a precedent in the 1980s with the phone number 867 5309 which was > used in a popular hit song. ( think 8675 3 oh 9 ). It was someone’s telephone > number in Ontario and that person got billions and billions of phone calls. > the phone number belongs to the phone company, not to you. > Where you have financial stake is if the calls do not stop and you are forced > to pay to have your phone number changed, including all your business cards, > letterhead etc. > If the company responsible for misrouting voicemail calls to your phone is > cooperative and has since stopped the problem, my guess is that the > compensation would be an amount corresponding to your hourly rate multiplied > by the number of hours you spent on the phone answering those calls. > (calculating the number of hours you lost due to those disturbances will be > the difficult part)

Response:

A lot of telemarketers has been fined.  Just complain.  It is working.  To bad there are exemptions for politians and charities.  Man tomorrow is the mayor election… > In alt.cellular.sprintpcs The Supreme Enchanter > Put your number on the dontcall list.  www.dontcall.com or is it > www.donotcall.com? > won’t work, these aren’t telemarketing calls. > Some of us question whether the DNC list even works on telemarketers, > anyhow. > — > JustThe.net Internet & New Media Services, Apple Valley, CA > Steven J. Sobol, Geek In Charge / 888.480.4NET (4638) /

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> PGP: C57E 8B25 F994 D6D0 5F6B B961 EA08 9410 E3AE 35ED > Domain Names, $9.95/yr, great service: http://DomainNames.JustThe.net/

Response:

Dear The: TSE>  www.dontcall.com or is it TSE> www.donotcall.com? www.donotcall.gov — Respectfully, John Thomas —-== Posted via Newsfeed.Com – Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==—- http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups —= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers – Total Privacy via Encryption =—

Response:

> Put your number on the dontcall list.  www.dontcall.com or is it > www.donotcall.com?

won’t work, these aren’t telemarketing calls. Some of us question whether the DNC list even works on telemarketers, anyhow. — JustThe.net Internet & New Media Services, Apple Valley, CA PGP: C57E 8B25 F994 D6D0 5F6B B961 EA08 9410 E3AE 35ED Domain Names, $9.95/yr, great service: http://DomainNames.JustThe.net/

Response:

Put your number on the dontcall list.  www.dontcall.com or is it www.donotcall.com?

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> Contact the FCC and Mr. Powell.. maybe your local House of Rep rep. > I do intend to be reasonable.  While I appreciate that they are > attempting to do something about it, I continue to get these calls. > The problem is that I get these calls night & day. > If I get a call at night or during church, its almost certainly a > client with an emergency.  Because of this, I am vigilant to answer > calls.  When I get a work call, it’s a TWO HOUR minimum charge. > The company has offered to pay for the airtime charges for the calls. > However, the REAL cost of these calls is my time & the potential that > I may miss a work call because I don’t stop my shower to answer a call > because I’m getting so many of these calls. > I’ve had this number since it went into service (no one had it before > me).  The number is on all my business material.  My old clients have > this number & may call out of the blue.  There are automated functions > set up to send data to my mobile phone. Changing my number really > isn’t an option. > Another issue is that I sometimes can’t even get the callers to speak > to me since it sounds like the phone doesn’t give them a chance to do > so, just hangs up.  I’m not sure if this will be resolved. > 1) Should I expect to be compensated for my time? > For calls at night, calls while working for another client, calls in > the shower, in church, movies, library? For time spent trying to > diagnose the original issue & hours spent trying to find the right > person in the company to understand the problem? > 2) Is there a law/regulation against what they have done?  I intend to > be fair.  If if I’m only asking for for a small fraction of what could > a fine or sanction, that would help in choosing a fair compensation > amount. > Thank you for your advice.  It is for the very reason that I want to > be fair that I ask for your input.  I don’t want to unfair, but this > is taking a toll on my business & my life.

Response:

This might be obvious but, why don’t you just ask them to pay for airtime charges and get a new number? If you are losing business out of it, change your number. BTW, what does this have to do with "alt.cellular.fido,alt.cellular.verizon" that were crossposted to? Scotty – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> The company has offered to pay for the airtime charges for the calls. > Sorry, I didn’t catch that point in the original post. You’ll have a hard > time arguing for more, and I do agree that that’s reasonable. (I jumped in > here in the middle of the conversation and didn’t read all the way back) > However, the REAL cost of these calls is my time & the potential that > I may miss a work call because I don’t stop my shower to answer a call > because I’m getting so many of these calls. > GMAFB. Even when I was on call at an ISP I wasn’t expected to spring into > action the second I heard my pager go off. Are you expected to answer your > phone on the toilet, too? I don’t care how much you’re paid, if you are that > tightly tethered to your phone, you need to find a new job. That is ridiculous. > I’ve had this number since it went into service (no one had it before > me).  The number is on all my business material.  My old clients have > this number & may call out of the blue.  There are automated functions > set up to send data to my mobile phone. Changing my number really > isn’t an option. > I’d argue that the company needs to make sure their phones get reprogrammed, > but financially speaking, I don’t think you can justify asking for more than > reimbursement of airtime, and I’m sorry, but your argument won’t hold water. > 1) Should I expect to be compensated for my time? > You can and should ask, however if they’re not willing to do it, I would not > pursue this particular angle in court. > 2) Is there a law/regulation against what they have done? > Not really. IANAL, again, but did they do it intentionally? If not, well, > mistakes are made. That’d be like when I worked at a company that had a > tollfree number ONE DIGIT different from the one for Blue Cross and Blue > Shield of Texas’s tollfree number for their Human Resource department, and > an idiot operator who always gave the number in such a thick accent that it > was impossible to figure out what she was saying. > Better yet, I had a number that was apparently very close to that of a > department at Revenue Canada — Canada’s equivalent of the US Internal > Revenue service. It was probably for an office in Quebec City or Montreal, > because I got a lot of people calling and leaving voicemails who were > apparently pissed off about their taxes. Of course, *they* were flaming > idiots for not being able to put two and two together – if you’re a citizen > of Quebec, it’s generally reasonable to expect that companies doing business > with you will answer the phone in *both* English and French, and I didn’t > have a French message. But that’s not the point… > is taking a toll on my business & my life. > No, dude, what’s taking a toll is you jumping out of your shower to answer > business calls, which — forgive me for being blunt — tells me that you > *need* a life. Is there anything unreasonable about expecting your clients > to leave a message, especially if you can be counted on to return it within, > say, five or fifteen minutes? > I do think you should be compensated, however — asking to get compensation > for your time is a slippery argument that you aren’t likely to win, and — > well, arguing that you should be compensated for not answering your phone > when you normally shouldn’t be answering your phone ANYHOW is just silly. > — > JustThe.net Internet & New Media Services, Apple Valley, CA > Steven J. Sobol, Geek In Charge / 888.480.4NET (4638) /

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> PGP: C57E 8B25 F994 D6D0 5F6B B961 EA08 9410 E3AE 35ED > Domain Names, $9.95/yr, great service: http://DomainNames.JustThe.net/

Response:

There was a precedent in the 1980s with the phone number 867 5309 which was used in a popular hit song. ( think 8675 3 oh 9 ). It was someone’s telephone number in Ontario and that person got billions and billions of phone calls. the phone number belongs to the phone company, not to you. Where you have financial stake is if the calls do not stop and you are forced to pay to have your phone number changed, including all your business cards, letterhead etc. If the company responsible for misrouting voicemail calls to your phone is cooperative and has since stopped the problem, my guess is that the compensation would be an amount corresponding to your hourly rate multiplied by the number of hours you spent on the phone answering those calls. (calculating the number of hours you lost due to those disturbances will be the difficult part)

Response:

> There was a precedent in the 1980s with the phone number 867 5309 which was > used in a popular hit song. ( think 8675 3 oh 9 ). It was someone’s telephone > number in Ontario and that person got billions and billions of phone calls.

It wasn’t just in Ontario. 867, for example, is one of the exchanges in common use in Akron, Ohio, in area code 330. Akron isn’t a big town, but it is large enough to have a downtown area, and 330-867-xxxx services a relatively busy region of West Akron. I remember reading about the Akron number (back then it was still part of 216, but you get the point) in the _Cleveland Plain Dealer_… I don’t recall who had it, I think it was a residential number at the time. — JustThe.net Internet & New Media Services, Apple Valley, CA PGP: C57E 8B25 F994 D6D0 5F6B B961 EA08 9410 E3AE 35ED Domain Names, $9.95/yr, great service: http://DomainNames.JustThe.net/

Response:

> I don’t why anyone, with the possible exception of P, would go the > litigation route.  All llitigation does is make the OP seem like an ass and > it may even leave him out in the cold collecting nothing.  The OP contacted > the telecom, the telecom wants to compensate him.  They are being > reasonable.  I would simply request they compensate me for my cell bill for > the months it was affected.  if I lost business then sit down with them and > figure out a realistic and reasonable amount.

If they don’t respond to the request, court MAY be warranted. Note that I said MAY. I’ll take people to court when I need to. I only do it when I have been caused financial damage and ONLY as a last resort. — JustThe.net Internet & New Media Services, Apple Valley, CA PGP: C57E 8B25 F994 D6D0 5F6B B961 EA08 9410 E3AE 35ED Domain Names, $9.95/yr, great service: http://DomainNames.JustThe.net/

Response:

> The company has offered to pay for the airtime charges for the calls.

Sorry, I didn’t catch that point in the original post. You’ll have a hard time arguing for more, and I do agree that that’s reasonable. (I jumped in here in the middle of the conversation and didn’t read all the way back) > However, the REAL cost of these calls is my time & the potential that > I may miss a work call because I don’t stop my shower to answer a call > because I’m getting so many of these calls.

GMAFB. Even when I was on call at an ISP I wasn’t expected to spring into action the second I heard my pager go off. Are you expected to answer your phone on the toilet, too? I don’t care how much you’re paid, if you are that tightly tethered to your phone, you need to find a new job. That is ridiculous. > I’ve had this number since it went into service (no one had it before > me).  The number is on all my business material.  My old clients have > this number & may call out of the blue.  There are automated functions > set up to send data to my mobile phone. Changing my number really > isn’t an option.

I’d argue that the company needs to make sure their phones get reprogrammed, but financially speaking, I don’t think you can justify asking for more than reimbursement of airtime, and I’m sorry, but your argument won’t hold water. > 1) Should I expect to be compensated for my time?

You can and should ask, however if they’re not willing to do it, I would not pursue this particular angle in court. > 2) Is there a law/regulation against what they have done?

Not really. IANAL, again, but did they do it intentionally? If not, well, mistakes are made. That’d be like when I worked at a company that had a tollfree number ONE DIGIT different from the one for Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Texas’s tollfree number for their Human Resource department, and an idiot operator who always gave the number in such a thick accent that it was impossible to figure out what she was saying. Better yet, I had a number that was apparently very close to that of a department at Revenue Canada — Canada’s equivalent of the US Internal Revenue service. It was probably for an office in Quebec City or Montreal, because I got a lot of people calling and leaving voicemails who were apparently pissed off about their taxes. Of course, *they* were flaming idiots for not being able to put two and two together – if you’re a citizen of Quebec, it’s generally reasonable to expect that companies doing business with you will answer the phone in *both* English and French, and I didn’t have a French message. But that’s not the point… > is taking a toll on my business & my life.

No, dude, what’s taking a toll is you jumping out of your shower to answer business calls, which — forgive me for being blunt — tells me that you *need* a life. Is there anything unreasonable about expecting your clients to leave a message, especially if you can be counted on to return it within, say, five or fifteen minutes? I do think you should be compensated, however — asking to get compensation for your time is a slippery argument that you aren’t likely to win, and — well, arguing that you should be compensated for not answering your phone when you normally shouldn’t be answering your phone ANYHOW is just silly. — JustThe.net Internet & New Media Services, Apple Valley, CA PGP: C57E 8B25 F994 D6D0 5F6B B961 EA08 9410 E3AE 35ED Domain Names, $9.95/yr, great service: http://DomainNames.JustThe.net/

Response:

Contact the FCC and Mr. Powell.. maybe your local House of Rep rep.

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> I do intend to be reasonable.  While I appreciate that they are > attempting to do something about it, I continue to get these calls. > The problem is that I get these calls night & day. > If I get a call at night or during church, its almost certainly a > client with an emergency.  Because of this, I am vigilant to answer > calls.  When I get a work call, it’s a TWO HOUR minimum charge. > The company has offered to pay for the airtime charges for the calls. > However, the REAL cost of these calls is my time & the potential that > I may miss a work call because I don’t stop my shower to answer a call > because I’m getting so many of these calls. > I’ve had this number since it went into service (no one had it before > me).  The number is on all my business material.  My old clients have > this number & may call out of the blue.  There are automated functions > set up to send data to my mobile phone. Changing my number really > isn’t an option. > Another issue is that I sometimes can’t even get the callers to speak > to me since it sounds like the phone doesn’t give them a chance to do > so, just hangs up.  I’m not sure if this will be resolved. > 1) Should I expect to be compensated for my time? > For calls at night, calls while working for another client, calls in > the shower, in church, movies, library? For time spent trying to > diagnose the original issue & hours spent trying to find the right > person in the company to understand the problem? > 2) Is there a law/regulation against what they have done?  I intend to > be fair.  If if I’m only asking for for a small fraction of what could > a fine or sanction, that would help in choosing a fair compensation > amount. > Thank you for your advice.  It is for the very reason that I want to > be fair that I ask for your input.  I don’t want to unfair, but this > is taking a toll on my business & my life.

Response:

I do intend to be reasonable.  While I appreciate that they are attempting to do something about it, I continue to get these calls. The problem is that I get these calls night & day. If I get a call at night or during church, its almost certainly a client with an emergency.  Because of this, I am vigilant to answer calls.  When I get a work call, it’s a TWO HOUR minimum charge. The company has offered to pay for the airtime charges for the calls. However, the REAL cost of these calls is my time & the potential that I may miss a work call because I don’t stop my shower to answer a call because I’m getting so many of these calls. I’ve had this number since it went into service (no one had it before me).  The number is on all my business material.  My old clients have this number & may call out of the blue.  There are automated functions set up to send data to my mobile phone. Changing my number really isn’t an option. Another issue is that I sometimes can’t even get the callers to speak to me since it sounds like the phone doesn’t give them a chance to do so, just hangs up.  I’m not sure if this will be resolved. 1) Should I expect to be compensated for my time? For calls at night, calls while working for another client, calls in the shower, in church, movies, library? For time spent trying to diagnose the original issue & hours spent trying to find the right person in the company to understand the problem? 2) Is there a law/regulation against what they have done?  I intend to be fair.  If if I’m only asking for for a small fraction of what could a fine or sanction, that would help in choosing a fair compensation amount. Thank you for your advice.  It is for the very reason that I want to be fair that I ask for your input.  I don’t want to unfair, but this is taking a toll on my business & my life.

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->> > What do YOU think? >> If you suffered damages from their negligence thats what courts are for. > I would give them a chance to correct the mistake. > If they pay you fairly, then there is not need to go to court. > If they will not properly compensate you, that is when you go to court. > IANAL disclaimer applies, but.. > I will go further – if you go to court FIRST without trying to resolve > the issue out of court, they can use that against you. It’s a very valid > argument, in this case… they probably will never know what’s happening > unless you talk to them first. And if they use that argument in court, and > you DIDN’T talk to them first, it’s likely that you will lose your case and > have wasted your money. > If you can get what you want by asking nicely, why beat it out of them? > Courts are a last resort, not the first resort, like so many people think > today.

I don’t why anyone, with the possible exception of P, would go the litigation route.  All llitigation does is make the OP seem like an ass and it may even leave him out in the cold collecting nothing.  The OP contacted the telecom, the telecom wants to compensate him.  They are being reasonable.  I would simply request they compensate me for my cell bill for the months it was affected.  if I lost business then sit down with them and figure out a realistic and reasonable amount. -F

Response:

>> > What do YOU think? > If you suffered damages from their negligence thats what courts are for. > I would give them a chance to correct the mistake. > If they pay you fairly, then there is not need to go to court. > If they will not properly compensate you, that is when you go to court.

IANAL disclaimer applies, but.. I will go further – if you go to court FIRST without trying to resolve the issue out of court, they can use that against you. It’s a very valid argument, in this case… they probably will never know what’s happening unless you talk to them first. And if they use that argument in court, and you DIDN’T talk to them first, it’s likely that you will lose your case and have wasted your money. > If you can get what you want by asking nicely, why beat it out of them? > Courts are a last resort, not the first resort, like so many people think > today.

– JustThe.net Internet & New Media Services, Apple Valley, CA PGP: C57E 8B25 F994 D6D0 5F6B B961 EA08 9410 E3AE 35ED Domain Names, $9.95/yr, great service: http://DomainNames.JustThe.net/

Response:

> > What do YOU think? > If you suffered damages from their negligence thats what courts are for.

I would give them a chance to correct the mistake. If they pay you fairly, then there is not need to go to court. If they will not properly compensate you, that is when you go to court. If you can get what you want by asking nicely, why beat it out of them? Courts are a last resort, not the first resort, like so many people think today.

Response:

> What do YOU think?

If you suffered damages from their negligence thats what courts are for.

Response:

> What do YOU think?

I would consider it an honest mistake. I would want them to correct, or remedy the problem. But I wouldn’t try to be a pain in the butt, as long as they try to do something about it. You should only be a pain in the butt when they do nothing about it. Here is what I would ask for. Them to compensate me in part for the mobile phone bill during the affected time. That is if it was a moderate inconvenience and inflated the bill above normal.. Or for them to totally compensate me for the bill if it rendered the phone useless. Be honest!!!! I would want them to work with my cell phone company to change my number to a non conflicting one, and get my phone company to restrict my old number so no one else would accidentally get it, and have the same problem. I would want them to pay for any cost that would be incurred by changing my phone number to another one. And, if you think you lost any business from the phone calls, then request to be compensated for the approximate lost amount. Don’t make up some ungodly amount!!!! If you do, they will just let you deal with their lawyers. If it was a slow month, and you lost about nothing, then say so. If you were bugged by the calls, but didn’t think you missed any important ones, then don’t ask to be compensated for lost business. If you are reasonable, and they see that you are, they should pay promptly, and do their best to help you. If you are an A$$, then they will forward you to their lawyers.

Response:

A USA Telecom company sold phones that were programmed wrong so they call my mobile phone instead of voicemail. The problem is the number that was programmed in was only valid for one place in the USA.  When that phone is used in my state, people call my business mobile phone (instead of their voicemail).  I have had HUNDREDS of these calls to my mobile phone. It took me some time to get one of the callers from these seemingly random numbers to let me know they were trying to reach voicemail.  I put enough pieces of information together that I called the telecom company & spent several hours getting to the right person who would understand what I was saying.  I had to ask callers who called me for more information before I diagnosed exactly what was happening. Yesterday someone from the company called & said they would like to compensate me.  The people I’ve dealt with at the company have been nice.  I don’t want to be unfair in dealing with them, but I’m wondering what should reasonably request as remuneration (especially since I’m still getting more of these calls). Is what they did illegal?   Would the FCC consider this any sort of violation? Could this be considered harrassing calls (even though the telecom company didn’t actually place the calls, simply provided the incorrectly programmed equipment)? What do YOU think?

Response:

Do you have any problem at business in Germany? We will be your marketing team in Germany We are marketing expert! R.P.T. Consulting is a full-service agency that offers Marketing, Advertising, Public Relation and integrated marketing strategy. We have the talent on staff to handle every aspect from research to completion. We are specialized in marketing consulting, planning, market research, sales promotion, report distribution channel for small and medium sized company. We can support to your company market researching in Germany and gaining the distribution channel. We know how to approach the German market, distinguish you from the competition and help you establish a dominant position in German market. Marketing is possibly the most important single function in your business life, whether you know it or not. We will be your smart & faithful marketing team at a reasonable cost. Our Services Strategic branding and positioning Marketing program implementation E-marketing Competitive analysis and benchmarking New market identification and penetration Marketing audit Developing sales support programs Conducting market and competitive research. Contact us at: R.P.T.  Consulting Reinhard P. Tischler P.O. Box 10 18 03 45618 Recklinghausen Germany Tel.       49-2361-184283 Fax.      49-2361-  57243 We have many thousand complete addresses with telephonnumbers of private buyers for all branches for your outmailing. Also we can put your offer on user website

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> Do you have any problem at business in Germany? > We will be your marketing team in Germany > We are marketing expert! > R.P.T. Consulting is a full-service agency that offers Marketing, > Advertising, Public Relation and integrated marketing strategy. We > have the talent on staff to handle every aspect from research to > completion. > We are specialized in marketing consulting, planning, > market research, sales promotion, report distribution channel for > small and medium sized company. > We can support to your company market researching in Germany and > gaining the distribution channel. We know how to approach the German > market, distinguish you from the competition and help you establish a > dominant position in German market. > Marketing is possibly the most important single function in your > business life, whether you know it or not. We will be your smart & > faithful marketing team at a reasonable cost. > Our Services > Strategic branding and positioning > Marketing program implementation > E-marketing > Competitive analysis and benchmarking > New market identification and penetration > Marketing audit > Developing sales support programs > Conducting market and competitive research. > Contact us at: > R.P.T.  Consulting > Reinhard P. Tischler > P.O. Box 10 18 03 > 45618 Recklinghausen > Germany > Tel.       49-2361-184283 > Fax.      49-2361-  57243 > We have many thousand complete addresses with telephonnumbers of private > buyers for all > branches for your outmailing. Also we can put your offer on user website

Response:

Oh, and on the subject of working for lawyers… don’t bother.  I happened to have a friend who’s a lawyer who hired me to maintain his network, but typically getting an attorney to part with his money is easier than pulling your own tooth. I get 3% response on direct mail to businesses, but when I mailed every attorney in the area a similar letter I got ZERO response.

Response:

> When I met with a counselor at the State’s Small Business help > organization – she spent the half hour trying to talk me out of it – > saying they are getting streams of laid off workers coming in and > wanting to start their own PC Repair business.  According to her – > almost all fail.

I’m sure she’s right.  But then again most all new businesses fail within the first 2 years. > So I bought 2 books (the only 2 that are listed) on this from Amazon.

Well, I’m not quite sure what you mean by PC Repair business.  If you plan to do in-home repair, you probably will experience exactly what these books say.  I personally ONLY do in-home repair for existing business clients, and generally only if they are influential in town. Book recommendations, in order of importance:   Getting Business To Come To You (I have the tapes for use in car)   Get Clients NOW!  By C.J. Hayden           (Highly recommended for new consultants)   High Income Consulting by Tom Lambert         (Not PC specific, but a good read)   Sales Prospecting for Dummies   Guerrilla Marketing (duh!) I think I read the same two PC consultants books you did, and wish I’d never wasted the money on them.  Computer consulting isn’t that different from other consulting – you are just providing a differently named service.  I think these books were written by consultants to try to keep others out of their market. > Both of them spend half the time trying to tell you how little you > will make after expenses and taxes are paid,

Well, This might just be true… until you get established anyway. Self-employment taxes means you will be paying almost double in taxes than you are used to.  Fortunately car mileage is deductible, computer upgrades for the home office are deductible, etc.  Contact a tax advisor.  Better yet, do what I did and work out a barter deal with a CPA to do his computer work in exchange for tax advice.  Don’t forget to pay your taxes quarterly. > Basically, all feedback I have received is incredibly negative, and I am > beginning to believe it.

Then you may not be cut out to be an entrepreneur.  The rest of us hear all the negative but never process it…  You MUST believe you can do this, and when things don’t go your way, you MUST not believe it’s because you are failing.  It’s important that when something doesn’t work you stop and objectively find another solution.  Over and over and over… > My "Grand Opening" started yesterday, with my ads running in a couple of > local newspapers.  It’s too early to tell, but no calls came in.

Yeah, Newspaper ads work after they’ve run about 6 months, and only when coupled with other marketing efforts. Don’t waste your money.  Every professional consulting book I’ve read basically states that professionals providing services will waste their money in ANY sort of "normal" advertising.  Your best and sometimes ONLY source of leads is referrals. The first thing I did was e-mail everyone I knew and told them what I was doing and asked if they could provide me with a list of 4 of 5 friends in the business world that I might contact. Out of that I generated almost and instant $2000 worth of business, plus found an accountant willing to work on barter. > daughter, and to be honest – this whole thing is scary.  But I have > spent too much now to quit.

I’ve been doing exactly this for the past 5 months now – for exactly the same reason.  I was laid off.  My employer gave me a small severance package that was enough for about 3 months of expenses when coupled with my savings account.  Now I’m bringing in a consistant $3000 a month in revenues, spiking to $4200 this month.  Yes, I only have 5 months of experience at this, but I also have long term contracts with some companies that ensure I will have cash flow in the near future.     > It seems the only way to make a living is to have service calls lined > up, one after the other, for at least 6 hours per day – and it does not > seem possible.  My mother-in-law said I shoudl start hoofing it . . . . > handing out cards and knocking on Doctors and Layer’s office doors. Hmmm > . . . not really my style.

But unfortunately she’s probably right, but do it on a referral basis. Ever had a vaccum cleaner salesperson at your door?  I guarantee he had a referral to see you, and if so then you let him in.  Don’t forget you can do website development, custom programming and other things after hours. I quote flat rates for some projects like web development that turns out to really bill around $180 per hour, and I get to do them at 1 AM if I want. As for rates, I charge $75 per hour, but for 6 month or longer agreements I have a discount structure based upon monthly usage. I based it not on competitors (mostly in the $40 range in my town for individuals, and $120 for big consulting firms) but because of the market I was attacking. Small businesses freak if told they will spend $90 per hour, and individuals won’t spend more than about $50 per hour, here at least. I want the small businesses.  They have the greatest need and highest ability to pay my bill. I help small businesses maintain and secure their computer networks.  What do you do?  Can you state it in one simple sentance like that? My startup costs were:         Business cards $35         Letterhead $20 (self printing on linen paper)         License $108  (DONT forget this one or end up in trouble) The only advertising I’ve done is to send out a personalized letter to certain categories of businesses in my town such as Dentists and Accountants.  I’ve had about a 3% response rate on those personalized letters and each new account has generated about $600 instantly, plus repeat business and more referrals.  For instance, the wife of an attorney I do work for runs a local TV station who just happens to need a new website… I also was lucky enough to have a golden umbrella.  I had one client right off the start who generated over $2500 per month of work for the first few months.  I did a high profile website for him, installed Gigabit ethernet in his office, reformatted computers, etc.  It gave me the time to find other clients. Good luck in your endeavors.  If you plan to do this, throw out everything you think you know about marketing and sales.  You MUST be a salesman, but not in the typical knocking on doors sense.  You MUST market, but don’t do newspaper and yellow pages.

Response:

Branch out. Sell Software Install small networks Install Wireless Networks – piece of cake if you have done it once or twice – at least for small businesses Do training on Windows, WEB, Email, MS OFFICE and other Products Network – Partner with companies that you can synergistically use to help propel each other In other words it is a saturated market – the work will not – again let me state – THE WORK WILL NOT COME TO YOU – for computer repair unless you can offer more services. But if you can add say an additional Partner every few weeks (Software, Hardware, Training, Business Supplies whatever – think of partnering in ways that it behooves your partners to get you into their clients) add a new service every few weeks – as your mother in law said ‘Hoof it’ a little – IE join the Chamber of Commerce (I would have done this before spending bucks on the yellow pages) — Bruce J Hafner http://www.siliconmindset.com Flow charting, Process Maps for Business – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – > I used to do this part time, alongside my regular job, so the success > of it did not matter.  Now after 6 months of unemployment, I have > restarted this full-time. > When I met with a counselor at the State’s Small Business help > organization – she spent the half hour trying to talk me out of it – > saying they are getting streams of laid off workers coming in and > wanting to start their own PC Repair business.  According to her – > almost all fail. > So I bought 2 books (the only 2 that are listed) on this from Amazon. > Both of them spend half the time trying to tell you how little you > will make after expenses and taxes are paid, how frustrating it is > with all the callbacks, the hassles of returns & RMA numbers, dealing > with multitudes of people vs just a few as in a regular job, driving > in traffic every day – all day, going to dirty, smelly houses with > sick people, etc. – and how if you are not this type of guy, or that > type of guy, etc – then this job is not cut out for you !!!  The "help > guides" are nothing more than depressing essays on how you will fail. > Basically, all feedback I have received is incredibly negative, and I > am beginning to believe it. > My "Grand Opening" started yesterday, with my ads running in a couple > of local newspapers.  It’s too early to tell, but no calls came in. > If on the "bright side" during the next week or two I get several > calls, and that mode continues – then it will take me a year to simply > make back the dough I spent on startup parts ($1400) and Advertising > in Newspapers ($380 per month) and Yellow Pages ( $1007 per year to > run a tiny 1-inch text only ad  . . . not in the big book . . . in two > of the small local books) !!!!! > Just running 3 ads in small newspapers and Yellow pages, and gas, I > estimated it out at 9 grand per year.  Wow.  How do the Geeks on Call > guys make it?  I went to their website and their Franchise fee is > about 50 grand just to start it up (they can finance it for you at 15% > down).  Out ads here have Geeks on Call, and Nerds on Call.  Well, I’m > not a Geek and I’m not a Nerd  -  just a guy trying to feed my wide > and daughter, and to be honest – this whole thing is scary.  But I > have spent too much now to quit. > It seems the only way to make a living is to have service calls lined > up, one after the other, for at least 6 hours per day – and it does > not seem possible.  My mother-in-law said I shoudl start hoofing it . > . . . handing out cards and knocking on Doctors and Layer’s office > doors.  Hmmm . . . not really my style. > By the way – I set my rates halfway between the most expensive, Geeks > on Call ($65 show-up and $80 per hour)  and the cheapest competitor I > found ($25 show-up and $50 per hour).  So I am charging $40 show-up > and $60 per hour.  When I did this part time I only charged $50 per > hour with no show-up fee, and I prorated it, so a 15 minute fix was > only $12 !!!  That’s a good way to starve. > Any tips ??  Any of you been able to make it in this business??

Response:

I used to do this part time, alongside my regular job, so the success of it did not matter.  Now after 6 months of unemployment, I have restarted this full-time. When I met with a counselor at the State’s Small Business help organization – she spent the half hour trying to talk me out of it – saying they are getting streams of laid off workers coming in and wanting to start their own PC Repair business.  According to her – almost all fail. So I bought 2 books (the only 2 that are listed) on this from Amazon. Both of them spend half the time trying to tell you how little you will make after expenses and taxes are paid, how frustrating it is with all the callbacks, the hassles of returns & RMA numbers, dealing with multitudes of people vs just a few as in a regular job, driving in traffic every day – all day, going to dirty, smelly houses with sick people, etc. – and how if you are not this type of guy, or that type of guy, etc – then this job is not cut out for you !!!  The "help guides" are nothing more than depressing essays on how you will fail. Basically, all feedback I have received is incredibly negative, and I am beginning to believe it.   My "Grand Opening" started yesterday, with my ads running in a couple of local newspapers.  It’s too early to tell, but no calls came in. If on the "bright side" during the next week or two I get several calls, and that mode continues – then it will take me a year to simply make back the dough I spent on startup parts ($1400) and Advertising in Newspapers ($380 per month) and Yellow Pages ( $1007 per year to run a tiny 1-inch text only ad  . . . not in the big book . . . in two of the small local books) !!!!! Just running 3 ads in small newspapers and Yellow pages, and gas, I estimated it out at 9 grand per year.  Wow.  How do the Geeks on Call guys make it?  I went to their website and their Franchise fee is about 50 grand just to start it up (they can finance it for you at 15% down).  Out ads here have Geeks on Call, and Nerds on Call.  Well, I’m not a Geek and I’m not a Nerd  -  just a guy trying to feed my wide and daughter, and to be honest – this whole thing is scary.  But I have spent too much now to quit. It seems the only way to make a living is to have service calls lined up, one after the other, for at least 6 hours per day – and it does not seem possible.  My mother-in-law said I shoudl start hoofing it . . . . handing out cards and knocking on Doctors and Layer’s office doors.  Hmmm . . . not really my style. By the way – I set my rates halfway between the most expensive, Geeks on Call ($65 show-up and $80 per hour)  and the cheapest competitor I found ($25 show-up and $50 per hour).  So I am charging $40 show-up and $60 per hour.  When I did this part time I only charged $50 per hour with no show-up fee, and I prorated it, so a 15 minute fix was only $12 !!!  That’s a good way to starve. Any tips ??  Any of you been able to make it in this business??

Response:

I want to make clear that what I’m about to state is conjecture and in no way can I justifiy it based on any facts known or yet to be known. I propose that when the Al Queda terrorists attacked the WTC they did not start the war but in effect won it.  I put for these thoughts as to why the tally leans in their favour. 1) They only lost ~dozen personell.  Since then the US and Britain have suffered more losses in their brief forays into Afghanistan and Iraq.  Not to mention the number of innocent Iraqi and Afghani civilians who fell victim to ‘collateral damage.’  One must understand that the fundamentalist thinking accepts those deaths as glorious in proving their fight against the infidels is holy and justified. 2) The American people have become deeply divided in how to view these attacks and the correct response so are finding it tough to truly band together with a common solution and a common will. 3) Great amounts of money are being expended that can never be recovered while many important issues on the homefront are not being taken care of due to lack of federal funds. 4) Everyday has some level of terrorist alert from yellow to red, never all clear.  The American people are being whipped into a frenzied paranoia, afraid for their safety on their own streets. 5) Osama is sleeping in his own bed and probably doesn’t give a rats ass until he’s figured America goes complacent again at which time he’ll shake the hornet’s nest once again. 6) America’s image on the world stage is getting more and more tarnished on the world stage as it continues to lash out blindly.

Response:

I missed one 7) Presidents come and go, and their agendas with them.  It makes it very hard to keep focus on any one objective for periods of more than a couple of terms.  Terrorists/dictators don’t have that constraint. Ain’t democracy grand.

Response:

Reprinted from NewsMax.com U.N. Promoted Annan Despite Endless Gaffes Stewart Stogel Wednesday, May 28, 2003 UNITED NATIONS – U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan’s decision to bar a Taiwanese official from briefing reporters at its New York City headquarters last week, despite an earlier pledge to permit the meeting, is just the latest in a long series of gaffes. Andrew Li-Yan Hsia, an official of the Taiwan Economic and Cultural Office in New York, had intended to speak with U.N. reporters on Taipei’s response to the SARS crisis. He was to meet the U.N. press at the U.N. Correspondents Club in the high-rise Secretariat building Friday. According to UNCA president Tony Jenkins, earlier in the week, Annan had given assurances that Hsia would be allowed to speak at the U.N., despite a history of Beijing’s U.N. mission opposing such access. Then, says Jenkins, on Thursday evening Annan reversed himself. When Hsia attempted to enter the U.N. on Friday he was blocked at the entrance by an armed security officer acting under orders from the U.N. chief. Annan spokesman Fred Eckhard would say only that the U.N. General Assembly "has a firm one China policy." Though considered by many observers to "be diplomatically savvy," history shows that Annan commonly stumbles on his own words. In the months leading up to Operation Iraqi Freedom, Annan repeatedly told reporters that the coalition did not have U.N. approval to use force. As such, any military action "would not be legal." Annan insisted that a second Security Council resolution to launch an invasion of Iraq was necessary. Washington and London disagreed. On March 19, Operation Iraqi Freedom began. Kofi Annan went silent. Proving Himself a Liar Several weeks earlier, a British newspaper (the Times) reported about a document that centered on U.N. contingency planning in the event the U.S. and U.K. invaded Iraq. Annan publicly challenged the Times’ report. The secretary- general insisted no such document existed. Just hours later, Annan asked the Times’ reporter how he got his hands on the document. When the reporter reminded the U.N. chief that he had earlier denied such a document existed, Annan smiled, shook his finger, and walked away. In March and April of 2002, Annan clashed with Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon and Foreign Minister Shimon Peres. The reason: Numerous reports were broadcast and printed about Israeli soldiers allegedly massacring "hundreds" of Palestinian civilians in the West Bank town of Jenin. Israel denied the reports. After consulting with Peres and Palestinian President Yassir Arafat, Annan announced early that April that he had permission from all parties to launch a fact-finding investigation. Then came the controversy. In mid-April, Annan announced that a formal commission of inquiry would travel to the region to investigate the charges made against the Israeli military. Shimon Peres said no. He insisted that he and Annan had agreed only to a small, informal group to investigate specific charges. The foreign minister said that Israel had no interest in hosting a formal commission of inquiry. He also said that he had never agreed to work with such a body. Annan disagreed. The dispute on just what was agreed to simmered for several days. Then it became known that Annan had his telephone call with Peres secretly taped. Israel’s deputy U.N. ambassador Aaron Jacob said that Jerusalem would not object to a release of the Annan tape or a written transcript of the conversation being made public. When Annan was asked if he would release the tape of the Peres telephone call, he replied, "To you, the press, never." Annan claimed that the privacy of such high-level communications was "sacrosanct." However, the U.N. chief seemed to forget that several weeks earlier he leaked the contents of a personal letter to Prime Minister Ariel Sharon before it had been replied to. That brought a rare public rebuke by Israel’s U.N. mission. Annan’s actions were officially called "inappropriate and contrary to basic diplomatic conduct." He eventually dropped the fact-finding idea, and never sent anyone to Jenin. Oops The U.N. did manage to issue a report on the incident in August 2002. In it, the U.N. was forced to admit that it could verify only the deaths of 52 Palestinians, not the rumors of more than 500 fatalities originally claimed. In February 1998, Annan traveled to Baghdad to see Iraqi President Saddam Hussein. The mission to Iraq came about as U.N. arms inspectors complained about the lack of cooperation in their hunt for weapons of mass destruction. The secretary-general left the Iraqi capital telling reporters Saddam "is a man I can do business with." Annan had just concluded the infamous Memorandum of Understanding. The "MOU" laid out the ground rules for U.N. inspections of so- called "sensitive" and "presidential" sites. By December, the MOU had all but fallen apart. Annan pulled the U.N. personnel out of Iraq. The Clinton administration then launched Operation Desert Fox. Annan saw his deal with Saddam Hussein explode in the night skies over Baghdad. It was not the first time Annan had problems with military confrontations. In 1993, Annan was the under secretary-general in charge of the U.N.’s department of peacekeeping operations (DPKO). At that time, the U.N. and the U.S. were heavily involved in trying to bring order to war-torn Somalia. In October 1993, the U.S. in conjunction with DPKO launched a series of daring raids in the Somali capital, Mogadishu. The purpose was to capture Mohammed Farah Aidid, a notorious warlord who controlled rebels that had been striking U.N. and U.S. forces. Part of the operation was immortalized in the motion picture "Black Hawk Down." As one attack got under way under cover of darkness, CNN began a live broadcast from the scene. The cable network televised images of U.S. helicopters dropping assault troops onto the roofs of several homes in the city. Gunfire and explosions could be seen and heard. Press calls to the Pentagon were referred to U.N. headquarters in New York. Washington insisted that any Somali military operation was under U.N., not U.S., control. U.N. spokesman Joe Sills therefore decided to make the head of U.N. peacekeeping available to the press. It was Kofi Annan. Annan told reporters assembled in Sills’ office that he "could not confirm reports of any military operation," and that "everything was quiet" in Mogadishu. The U.N. military chief had a problem. Sitting right beside him was a television with CNN showing an attack in progress. The gaffe was recorded by several radio and television networks. Annan returned later in the evening to confirm the military operation. He explained his earlier denials by claiming that the Pentagon had not given him "clearance" to speak about the Somali raid. Many U.N. diplomats feel that Annan won a second five-year term in 2001 simply because he was able to outmaneuver a weak field of potential alternatives. One of his campaign lieutenants, Shashi Tharoor (India) was once labeled by former U.N. chief arms inspector Richard Butler as "captain of [Annan's] thought police." Tharoor, now the director of the U.N.’s Department of Public Information, is believed to be eyeing the world body’s top job when Annan retires in 2006. Speaking about Annan and his controversial dealings, one French diplomat remarked: "He’s your man … You [the U.S.] wanted him … so do not complain."

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> I want to make clear that what I’m about to state is conjecture and in > no way can I justifiy it based on any facts known or yet to be known. > I propose that when the Al Queda terrorists attacked the WTC they did > not start the war but in effect won it.  I put for these thoughts as > to why the tally leans in their favour. > 1) They only lost ~dozen personell.  Since then the US and Britain > have suffered more losses in their brief forays into Afghanistan and > Iraq.  Not to mention the number of innocent Iraqi and Afghani > civilians who fell victim to ‘collateral damage.’  One must understand > that the fundamentalist thinking accepts those deaths as glorious in > proving their fight against the infidels is holy and justified. > 2) The American people have become deeply divided in how to view these > attacks and the correct response so are finding it tough to truly band > together with a common solution and a common will. > 3) Great amounts of money are being expended that can never be > recovered while many important issues on the homefront are not being > taken care of due to lack of federal funds. > 4) Everyday has some level of terrorist alert from yellow to red, > never all clear.  The American people are being whipped into a > frenzied paranoia, afraid for their safety on their own streets. > 5) Osama is sleeping in his own bed and probably doesn’t give a rats > ass until he’s figured America goes complacent again at which time > he’ll shake the hornet’s nest once again. > 6) America’s image on the world stage is getting more and more > tarnished on the world stage as it continues to lash out blindly.

7) You’re a complete bone-head… but at least you admit that this opinion of yours is nothing more than conjecture and not based on any facts… ..so basically it’s just mumbling about something you "feel" has something to do with the "psychology of war"…

Response:

>I want to make clear that what I’m about to state is conjecture and in >no way can I justifiy it based on any facts known or yet to be known. >I propose that when the Al Queda terrorists attacked the WTC they did >not start the war but in effect won it.  I put for these thoughts as >to why the tally leans in their favour.

Sure, let’s have a look. >1) They only lost ~dozen personell.  Since then the US and Britain >have suffered more losses in their brief forays into Afghanistan and >Iraq.  Not to mention the number of innocent Iraqi and Afghani >civilians who fell victim to ‘collateral damage.’  One must understand >that the fundamentalist thinking accepts those deaths as glorious in >proving their fight against the infidels is holy and justified.

Our side has had far fewer losses as a percentage of available recruits and don’t underestimate the other side’s losses. We took thousands of them both dead and alive – dozens of leadership positions were eliminated and we forced a complete restructuring of their operations. Let’s leave the emotional side out. The fact that they think they are successful doesn’t change the fact that they are losing fast. Remember these people are not emotionally well developed, let ‘em taunt and boast, we’ll still take them. >2) The American people have become deeply divided in how to view these >attacks and the correct response so are finding it tough to truly band >together with a common solution and a common will.

Not really. Bush has a plan and the overwhelming majority approves. Do remember that those opposed are, in a true and historic sense, the noisiest human beings to have ever walked the planet. >3) Great amounts of money are being expended that can never be >recovered while many important issues on the homefront are not being >taken care of due to lack of federal funds.

Pshaw, money is never un-recovered. It isn’t as if the defense budget was being converted to $100 bills  burned and burned in a trench behind the pentagon. We’ll print more. The amazing thing about the US military budget isn’t how large it is,but what a small portion of our national economy it is. >4) Everyday has some level of terrorist alert from yellow to red, >never all clear.  The American people are being whipped into a >frenzied paranoia, afraid for their safety on their own streets.

Get out more. Really. Everyone else is pretty sure it’s okay. The rest of us are out here and nobody’s that afraid who wasn’t already. Ya wan’t paranoia, try SARS. >5) Osama is sleeping in his own bed and probably doesn’t give a rats >ass until he’s figured America goes complacent again at which time >he’ll shake the hornet’s nest once again.

Oh, when the hell has that man ever shut up before? He is too scared or too dead to allow even a photograph. >6) America’s image on the world stage is getting more and more >tarnished on the world stage as it continues to lash out blindly.

Oh bullshit. Even the oil fetishists don’t consider this war unplanned, nevermind a blind lashing out. Ron

Response:

> Passengers to suffer clipped wings > By Amon Cohen / Financial Times > Published: March 10 2003 18:31 | Last Updated: March 10 2003 18:31 > Business travellers are disappearing.

That’s because they aren’t feeding us like they used to.

Response:

Passengers to suffer clipped wings By Amon Cohen / Financial Times Published: March 10 2003 18:31 | Last Updated: March 10 2003 18:31 Business travellers are disappearing. Numbers started to dwindle when the dotcom bubble burst two years ago, then fell precipitately after September 11 2001. A tentative recovery got under way this time last year but since the turn of 2003 the threat of war in the Middle East has renewed the reluctance to fly, especially among Americans. Evidence for a renewed downturn is growing. Continental Airlines reports that the number of miles flown by passengers last month was 6.6 per cent down on 2002, already well down on 2001. A survey of 250 US travel buyers by the Association of Corporate Travel Executives found that 32 per cent of companies had already cut travel further, in anticipation of a second Gulf war, and that 82 per cent intended to curtail trips if hostilities commenced. Gabriel Eshaghian, manager of global airline and car rental programmes for PwC, confirms gloomy prognoses outlined recently by the big airline reservations systems, which revealed poor advance bookings. "Airlines are telling me that advance bookings are looking awful, especially on transatlantic routes, where they are as much as 50 per cent down," says Mr Eshaghian. Hotels are suffering, too. PwC’s hospitality and leisure practice reports that hotels in New York saw their revenue per available room in January fall 6.6 per cent on the previous year. Initial reports for February indicate a drop of 9 per cent. Rather than delight in the prospect of slashed travel costs, business travel buyers are worried. They fear employees will be severely inconvenienced by reduced frequencies and smaller networks – and some suppliers could go out of business. Cuts have already emerged. Swiss International Airlines, the successor to Swissair, launched in late 2001 by the Swiss government, is withdrawing 20 aircraft and axing or curtailing about 50 routes after seeing business plummet since November. "The forecasts for 2003 remain poor and there is no improvement in sight," says the airline, which has noted a continuing retreat by business travellers to economy class, especially on short-haul routes. In the UK, British Airways has cut services to the Middle East and is pondering a move that would have great resonance for the entire travel industry, says Matthew Davis, director of global consulting for American Express. "The question marks raised by BA over whether to continue its Concorde service are a sign that the top end of the market is beginning to change," he says. Airline sources say frequencies on general transatlantic services will be scaled back rapidly if a war starts, just as in the aftermath of September 11. United Airlines has said it may reduce its overall network by 10-12 per cent. In the US, travel managers worry about an even more drastic possibility. "Travel managers here are questioning the fate of several airlines and making contingency plans to hedge against the risks," says Mr Eshaghian. "It would be bad if airlines went under. We want to see a healthy, competitive landscape." He also notes that airlines’ customer service levels have "plummeted". United and US Airways are already in Chapter 11 bankruptcy and American Airlines has said it could go the same way if it is unable to make substantial cost savings this year – something all carriers will find hard to achieve while fuel costs are soaring. Hotels also face a glum outlook. "We will see a rise in bankruptcies and sales of assets," says Sean Hennessey, director of PwC’s hospitality and leisure practice. Another buyer worried about weakness of suppliers is Nadine Dewart, Netherlands-based European travel manager for BMC Software and chair of ACTE Europe. "Suppliers are in crisis management at the moment and some are offering short- term discounts to win market share. Our worry is that they will go out of business," she says. And the buyer’s market does not stretch to everyone. Although some suppliers may hold fire sales, others will hold the line because they believe the business people who are still travelling are manifesting an inelastic demand. If they have to travel even in the present climate, suppliers may as well charge them full price, especially as they are less likely to buy in bulk. "On the one hand, corporate travellers have the upper hand in negotiations because of weak demand," says Mr Hennessey. "On the other, because companies are travelling less, they have less volume to offer the hotels. One answer is to consolidate, with even fewer suppliers." This solution may not work for airline negotiations, where, paradoxically, companies may have to expand their list of preferred suppliers, says Scott Gillespie, chief executive officer of Ohio-based travel management consultancy Travel Analytics: "Airlines are going to reduce their networks, which makes it likely buyers will need more suppliers to meet all their travel requirements," he says. Few industry observers see any sign of an upturn. Mr Gillespie says US businesses have permanently reduced their travel by 10-15 per cent since September 11. He thinks a war on Iraq, and its likely consequences, could wipe out another 5 per cent in the long term as intensified anti-western feeling would damage international trade. Ian Hall, director of European travel for Unilever, agrees. "I do not see travel volumes coming back," he says. "People are saying it will bounce back as it did after the 1991 Gulf war but there was not a threat of terrorism last time and a concern about when or where it would happen. The market place has changed and we are finding other ways than travel of communicating."

Response:

Here’s the link: http://moneycentral.msn.com/articles/insure/basics/8925.asp

Response:

What your health insurer doesn’t want you to know From slow payments to slick contracts and even to splitting your own pills, your insurance company may be playing games to save money. By Vicki Lankarge, for insure.com Since antiquity, when Hippocrates wrote "Do no harm," countless patients have put their trust in physicians who have taken that oath. But somewhere along the line, medicine became a business — a $1.3 trillion a year business, according to the U.S. government — run by insurance companies that have taken no such oath. Do you ever feel that when it comes to your health plan, the deck is stacked against you? That’s because there are plenty of things your health insurer doesn’t want you to know. Here are just 13 of them. 1. It is sometimes cheaper to let you die rather than to treat you for a serious condition. Health insurers don’t deny care; they deny payment for the care, which usually amounts to the same thing. They deny payment because it saves them money. These denials sometimes cause patients’ deaths. Sound outrageous? Consider the statement below. It’s an excerpt from the May 30, 1996, testimony given before the U.S. States House of Representatives by Dr. Linda Peeno, a former HMO medical director and medical claims reviewer for Humana and Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Kentucky. Peeno is now a medical-ethics consultant and managed-care whistleblower. "I wish to begin by making a public confession: In the spring of 1987, as a physician, I caused the death of a man. Although this was known to many people, I have not been taken before any court of law or called to account for this in any professional or public forum. In fact, just the opposite occurred: I was ‘rewarded’ for this. It bought me an improved reputation in my job, and contributed to my advancement afterwards. Not only did I demonstrate I could indeed do what was expected of me, I exemplified the ‘good’ company doctor: I saved a half million dollars! "Whether it was nonprofit or for-profit, whether it was a health plan or hospital, I had a common task: using my medical expertise for the financial benefit of the organization, often at great harm and potentially death, to some patients….I am the evidence that managed care is inherently unethical, in the areas of both medicine and business. Had my experiences been the result of merely local aberrations, I would not have had anything to do for the past six years. On the contrary, I discovered that my experiences are standard practice and quite ordinary for the managed care business." 2. Health insurers routinely hide benefit exclusions. Health insurers make their covered benefits as narrow as the market allows and routinely redesign benefits to control their highest costs, insiders say. They also use disingenuous policy language to "hide" exclusions in not-very-plain sight. For example, some dental plans cover accidental injury to your teeth. So if you bite down on a hard candy and your tooth partially crumbles, you believe the insurer will pay to fix it. But you’re in for a rude awakening when you submit your claim and it’s denied weeks later. That’s when you discover the policy’s "definition of terms" section states in fine print: "Injury to the teeth while eating is not considered an accidental injury." 3. Health insurers don’t really want you to understand how your health plan works. Health insurers use marketing that enhances the attractive elements of a plan, but they don’t disclose potential plan problems. Most group health insurance members have no idea of their exact coverage limits or rules of their plans until after the open enrollment period when they receive their benefit booklets. Even then, the benefit booklets don’t fully reflect the contract between the members’ employer and the health insurer. The seeds of some of the most common claims problems are sown when employers purchase health insurance for their employees, says Maria K. Todd, president and CEO of HealthPro Consulting Consortium, a private managed-care consulting firm in Aurora, Colo. Todd says most employers use health insurance brokers to whom they give a list of desired benefits. The broker, in turn, identifies insurers that offer affordable plans with those benefits. Once the employer selects an insurer, the broker hands the employer a contract to review and sign. "But the average human resources director really isn’t aware he or she is being given a boilerplate contract that favors the health plan," Todd says. They may not realize that every element of the plan is potentially negotiable, and that they could hammer out improvements for the plan members. (For more information, see "Claim denials: Who’s responsible when your health plan doesn’t play by the rules?" at left.) 4. Health insurers employ "phantom networks." Did you ever try to switch primary care physicians within your plan’s provider network only to find out with each phone call that many of the doctors named on the provider list are not accepting new patients? Then you have fallen prey to a health insurer that uses a "phantom network," a directory filled with doctors who are no longer with the plan or who are not taking new patients. Health insurers leave the names on the list to make it look they have more doctors available to health plan members. The New York Attorney General’s Office is currently investigating health plans that list physicians as participants even when the doctors are not taking any new patients. 5. Health insurers can make you "split" your pills. You may be surprised one day when you fill your prescription and discover a pill splitter inside the bag along with a bottle of larger-dose pills that you must cut in half. Mandatory pill splitting has been condemned by the American Medical Association (AMA), the American Society of Consultant Pharmacists (ASCP), and the American Pharmaceutical Association (APhA) due to the health risks involved. These include the chance that patients will divide the pills unevenly and wind up taking incorrect doses or, because some suffer from cognitive impairments, may forget which pills they must split. Six California Kaiser Permanente patients and one doctor formerly under contract with the HMO are currently suing Kaiser for allegedly forcing its members to split pills. The lawsuit alleges the practice allows Kaiser to profit because smaller-dose versions of some prescription pills cost Kaiser almost as much as larger-dose versions of the same pill. 6. Health insurers will go after your auto insurance settlement. You’re probably not aware that it’s perfectly legal in most instances for health insurers to place a lien on any third-party settlement money you get from an auto insurer after an accident. This practice is known as "subrogation," which simply means "substituting one for another." Health insurers are allowed to recoup the cost of your medical care from the settlement you receive from the person who injured you. For example, if your auto accident medical expenses total $5,000 and you win a $10,000 settlement, your health insurer can take half — but only if its "rights of recovery" are spelled out in your plan agreement or summary of benefits. There have been plenty of court cases over this practice, and the issues aren’t clear cut. You do have the option of hiring an attorney to fight your health insurer’s subrogation demands. (For more information, see "Protecting your auto insurance settlement from your health care provider" by clicking at left.) 7. Health insurers purposefully delay paying claims to maximize their profits. Although 46 states have prompt-pay laws, those laws apply to "clean claims," or claims submitted to them without any missing or wrong information. The problem is, says Peeno, health insurers create a maze of payment-submission rules that guarantee there will be many "technical" denials for missing information or failure to follow the convoluted claims-submission procedures. Why do insurers drag their feet on paying claims? Your premium money is invested in interest-bearing accounts. An insurer delays remittance until the interest in these accounts is sufficient to pay the accumulated claims without cutting into the insurer’s profit margin. Medical ethicists such as Peeno say "growing" the money isn’t a questionable business practice, but the deliberate denial and/or slow payment of claims is. The problem is widespread. Last year, Texas Insurance Commissioner Jose Montemayor slapped 17 health insurers with fines totaling $9.2 million for violating the state’s prompt-pay law and lawsuits have been filed across the country by doctors charging slow payment of claims by health insurers. 8. Your doctor isn’t calling the shots. Do you know whose guidelines your health insurer follows when approving the length of your hospital stay? Your doctor’s, right? Wrong. Your insurer is most likely using guidelines developed by an actuarial consulting firm such as Milliman & Robertson. The problem is: Most doctors complain that Milliman & Robertson’s recommended hospital stays are dangerously brief. For example, Milliman & Robertson data state that the "target" hospital stay for meningitis (an infection of the covering of the brain and the spinal cord) is three days. Many physicians say this is outrageously short and that the average length of hospital stay for meningitis is a week or more. The use of Milliman & Robertson data to limit patients’ care (and increase revenue) is just one of the allegations brought forth in a lawsuit filed by the state medical associations of California, Georgia and Texas in U.S. District Court in Miami that accuses nine health plans (Aetna and its Prudential unit, CIGNA, Coventry Health Care, Foundation Health Systems, Humana, PacifiCare Health Systems, United Health Group and WellPoint Health Networks) of violating federal racketeering laws. 9. You don’t have to pay … read more »

Response:

>Aauugghhh! Big travel mistake is to assume that everyone knows I’m >from the US (arrogant Yankee). So very sorry. I’m on the east coast, >flying out of Dulles, Va.  Thanks everyone for the help and thoughts. >Ken Norris

Flying from IAD also eliminates all the convenient AM flights to europe.  I think you  have to go to NYC to catch one. LHR is only 6 hrs away from IAD.  6am is the earliest allowed arrival. UA has one of those.   You may not be able to check into your hotel until 2pm.  I don’t enjoy doing much at 9am with very little sleep.(4am est) I am exhausted after the flight(I’m about the age of 3 of the other respondents combined).  So, I am met by a car, taken to central London, and rent a day room for 50lbs.  Get up at 3pm, (10am est), and spend the day like a normal one.  I spend the weekend starting at 10am, and bed very late. I prefer weekdays to weekends in LON.  Less people, easier show tickets.

Response:

Aauugghhh! Big travel mistake is to assume that everyone knows I’m from the US (arrogant Yankee). So very sorry. I’m on the east coast, flying out of Dulles, Va.  Thanks everyone for the help and thoughts. Ken Norris – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> All, > Has anyone taken these short 3-5 day trips to Europe I see advertised > at really cheap rates? My concern is more with the jet lag and are you > able to enjoy the short trips. I like the idea of a short trip because > I work full time and I own my own network consulting business. Small > amounts of time away are easier to arrange. >Where are you? Jet lag from UK is negligable, from East Coast USA/Canada >smaller than from West Coast USA/Canada, and even worse from Hawaii or >Australia/NZ. >Sjoerd

Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com – Still Only $9.95 – http://www.uncensored-news.com    With NINE Servers In California And Texas – The Worlds Uncensored News Source

Response:

> Personally I prefer the opposite, leave the east coast in the early evening > and show up on the other side pretty early in the morning, slam back a > couple expressos/coca-colas and a chocolate bar and get going. By the time > evening rolls, you’ll sleep like the dead since you’ve been up for over 24 > hours thanks to adrenaline and caffine but wake up the next morning > completely refreshed and over the jetlag. If you can sleep a bit on the > plane ride over it’ll make it even easier to stay up during the first day.

I like leaving the east coast at night, too. However, I go right to my hotel and take a 2-3 hour nap. By noon, I’m up and around, and still have most of the day.   .. Joann

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> Personally I prefer the opposite, leave the east coast in the early evening > and show up on the other side pretty early in the morning, slam back a > couple expressos/coca-colas and a chocolate bar and get going. By the time > evening rolls, you’ll sleep like the dead since you’ve been up for over 24 > i don’t know about you but  find it hard to sleep in the 5-6 hours after > takeoff and before landing.  Arriving in Europe at about midnight/early > hours east coast time. > hours thanks to adrenaline and caffine but wake up the next morning > completely refreshed and over the jetlag. If you can sleep a bit on the > plane ride over it’ll make it even easier to stay up during the first day. > Not from my own experience or most others I know (we’re in our 30s). > This fatigue and sleepiness will hit, badly, around 2-4 pm if you don’t > keep movingon your feet.  and your brain will be dead

I’m in my 20’s, and in my teens regularly subjected my body to all sorts of cruel and unusual forms of sleep deprevation; usually while doing unspeakable things to my liver and lungs. So now if all I have to cope with is being awake for 25 or 30 straight hours and there’s no alcohol involved it’s nothing, though you should try a little 15-20 minute nap on a bus or train when the 2-4pm fatigue hits, it’ll do you wonders! Richard

Response:

> All, > Has anyone taken these short 3-5 day trips to Europe I see advertised > at really cheap rates? My concern is more with the jet lag and are you > able to enjoy the short trips. I like the idea of a short trip because > I work full time and I own my own network consulting business. Small > amounts of time away are easier to arrange. > Thanks,

The mere thought makes me shudder  I can easily spend 3 week in Germany.  The thought of flying that far for about a weekend is depressing! —                   Mary Loomer Oliver (aka erilar) What do you mean, too many books?? Erilar’s Cave Annex: http://www.airstreamcomm.net/~erilarlo

Response:

> I did that the other way around 3 years ago. > MUC-JFK on Friday (arrival early evening) return flight the next Sunday > evening. > It was stressful, I didn

speaking as an economist (thank you VERY MUCH, mr. shaw – i never liked your work either <grin>), there is much merit to what has been written below – although it lacks an interpretive slant. one major issue that is not figured into the cost of cyberterrorism is the ongoing costs of maintaining a necessary defence to prevent intrusion of susceptible systems. in other words, companies MUST maintain valid, up-to-date virus detection systems, fire-walls and other prophylactic devices commensurate to the size of their network in order to minimize the threat of an intrusion. this adds significantly to the cost of maintaining a mainframe or LAN today that was not present when the first networks were set up and the www did not exist. ideally, a company has in place software that is screening all incoming e-mail at source before it is delivered to the employee – however – that is far more costly to run than the desktop version of one program (which needs multiple user licenses to be used in an office, depending on the number of employees). full versions of licensed software, say norton anti-virus, with the firewall, which is what i use, with the subscriptions to updates is not an inexpensive proposition for an individual (i cannot recall … but i think the last renewal was $15 u.s. for virus updates) – imagine that for the entire company. but it is a cost that is there ONLY because of the malicious behaviour of people who want to cause damage. if you want a much more accurate view of what the economic impact is of viruses, i would strongly recommend that you need to factor in the incomes of the major companies involved in protection: symantic, mcafee, etc. there are so many companies that are profiting from this that it is something that needs to be a part of the equation. data without interpretation is often impressive, but not necessesarily correct, or complete. THAT, my dear mr shaw, is the conclusion of an economist. sj

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> Hi all, >     I am just providing a cut and paste of a newsletter I get occasionally. > Since you all use computers on the internet I hope you will find this useful > and interesting. > bye, > Peter — > "If all economists were laid end to end, they would not reach a > conclusion." > George Bernard Shaw (1856-1950); Anglo-Irish playwright, critic. > – Economic impact of virus attacks over the last few years – > Oxygen3 24h-365d, by Panda Software (http://www.pandasoftware.com) > Madrid, December 28, 2001 — Computer Economics has published -at > http://www.computereconomics.com/cei/press/pr92101.html- the results of a > report on the economic impact of virus attacks worldwide. > According to Computer Economics, incidents that have occurred since the > appearance of the ‘Love Letter’ virus have had less economic impact, mainly > because of the automation of the virus removal process since that massive > attack. > This report was carried out by Michael Erbschloe, Vice President of Research > at Computer Economics, who believes that cyberterrorism is a serious threat > to e-commerce and Internet applications in government, education, and > business. > The cyber attack index reported by Computer Economics shows the relative > impact of specific incidents in relation to the economic losses of the ‘I > Love You’ epidemic in 2000, the attack with the largest financial impact so > far. Those losses amounted to US$8,750 million (10,000 million euros). > Following I Love You, the report lists Code Red ($2.62 billion); Sircam > ($1.15 billion) and Nimda ($635 million). However, other viruses that > appeared before I Love You, like Melissa or Explorer, also caused losses of > approximately $1.02 billion. > The study also covers incidents less costly for companies. For example, > Goner is calculated to have infected some 860,000 computers worldwide -a > small figure compared to other viruses- resulting in an economic impact of > $8.5 million. > NOTE: The address above may not show up on your screen as one line. This > would prevent you from using the link to access the web page. If this > happens, just use the ‘cut’ and ‘paste’ options to join the pieces of the > URL.

–