Look Cleats Breaking ?

Tom Kunich wrote:

[Mostly cogent reply snipped]

Who the hell are you, and why are you posting with Tom Kunich's name?

Tom Kunich said:

"Robert Chung" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Mike Murray said:

For the most part here in the US the
crisis of people lacking medical insurance is primarily an issue of
people electing NOT to purchase rather than being unable to purchase.

Were that so, there'd be no need to call it a crisis. BTW,
http://anonymous.coward.free.fr/scpo/insured.png

BTW, what the hell do you think you're seeing with that graph?

Three things:

1. There's a lot of variability from state to state, so it doesn't make
much sense to talk about the situation "for the most part here in the US."
The situation in Minnesota is very different than the situations in Texas
or New Mexico.

2. Public "safety net" insurance (mostly, Medicare) doesn't quite make up
for private (mostly, employer-based) insurance across states. That's not a
normative statement: I'm not saying it should make up for it -- but this
is one of the few interstate comparisons of public vs. private insurance.

3. Makes you wonder about the nature of private employment in some of
those states, don't it?

Quoted message said:

Tom Kunich wrote:

[Mostly cogent reply snipped]

Robert Chung said:

Who the hell are you, and why are you posting with Tom Kunich's name?

The MPD virus is prevalent on rbr, although normal symptoms include use
of capitals which is not manifested here.

"Tom Kunich" <[email hidden]> wrote:
"Most of the insurance in this country is for the healthiest segment of the
population - those working."

On the other hand there is a large segment of very health young people that
are not insured because they do not see that the value of insurance since
they are generally infrequent consumers of medical care. Since they don't
pay into the system the ones left in pay more. Insurance companies are not
economically motivated to sell people the small premium, high deductible
coverage that they really need to prevent bankruptcy from unexpected medical
losses. They would rather spend their efforts selling high premium
comprehensive group plans since the profit margin for the effort invested is
much higher. If you think about it the comprehensive medical insurance plan
that people often get from their employers are rather like if you purchase
car insurance which not only covered accidents but also regular maintenance,
tires, gas and even purchase of the automobile. Add that to the fact that
shopping for medical care based on cost is nearly impossible it is easy to
see why the system has spiraled out of control. If insurance covered all
your auto costs, including purchase, and you got your insurance from you
employer would you be driving the same car the same amount or would you be
more likely to buy a bigger, fancier car and drive it more frequently.

Tom is correct that the only way the system can really move towards more
efficiency and prices which actually represent market values is to make
coverage more universal and to have the individual consumer participate more
in cost decisions.

Mike Murray

Mike Murray said:

On the other hand there is a large segment of very health young people that
are not insured because they do not see that the value of insurance since
they are generally infrequent consumers of medical care.

i thought of looking for insurance after reading your previous post. the
problem is, right now i'm able to save about $50 a month for medical
costs, and another $50 for other unforeseen bills (like, our roof right
now needs fixing as the gutters aren't correctly attached and so some of
the wood has rotted. earlier in the year i had to buy a clothes dryer).
so i could maybe, if it's available, buy insurance with the $50 that
i'm currently saving for medical costs. but then, how will i pay the
high deductible when i end up needing a service as i won't be able to
save up for medical costs if i also have to pay for insurance...

so i'm not looking for insurance right now, unless there's some solution
i'm not seeing.

heather

"Mike Murray" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"Tom Kunich" <[email hidden]> wrote:
"Most of the insurance in this country is for the healthiest segment of
the population - those working."

On the other hand there is a large segment of very health young people
that are not insured because they do not see that the value of insurance
since they are generally infrequent consumers of medical care.

Absolutely, but that isn't he heart of the problem. The real problem is new
families who can't get insurance or those who have some relatively minor
health problems that disqualify them from medical insurance, such as
diabetis or high blood pressure that could cause problems 20 years down the
line but who cannot get and maintain insurance now.

My ex-brother-in-law was born without a pulmonary artery. He lived to 42
with that condition. He was lucky enough to get Kaiser at some time during
his early employment when they didn't ask embarassing questions and he then
held on to it forever after. Kaiser was doing absolutely everything to try
and shake him off but he held on tighter than a leech. Finally he had them
transplant a section of heart with a pulmonary artery on it and for the
first time in his life his blood oxygen was 98% instead of 72% or lower (I
didn't think anyone could live like that!) He's now in his 50's and still
has that Kaiser insurance and they're still crying every time his name comes
up.

He's a stupid jerk but I hope he lives to be 100.

Quoted message said:

Insurance companies are not economically motivated to sell people the
small premium, high deductible coverage that they really need to prevent
bankruptcy from unexpected medical losses. They would rather spend their
efforts selling high premium comprehensive group plans since the profit
margin for the effort invested is much higher. If you think about it the
comprehensive medical insurance plan that people often get from their
employers are rather like if you purchase car insurance which not only
covered accidents but also regular maintenance, tires, gas and even
purchase of the automobile. Add that to the fact that shopping for
medical care based on cost is nearly impossible it is easy to see why the
system has spiraled out of control. If insurance covered all your auto
costs, including purchase, and you got your insurance from you employer
would you be driving the same car the same amount or would you be more
likely to buy a bigger, fancier car and drive it more frequently.

BUT the insurance business is a GOOD business. It just has some screwy
priorities that it has to get straight (Capitalistic systems are basically
moral and ethical but they can be twisted as anything else.) Insurance
allows a whole group to prepare for the unexpected so that the load is
shared. A government can't do this with any efficiency because no one in a
government cares what anything costs.

Quoted message said:

Tom is correct that the only way the system can really move towards more
efficiency and prices which actually represent market values is to make
coverage more universal and to have the individual consumer participate
more in cost decisions.

We have to remember that when these people are uninsured, they fall back
onto the insurer of last resort - the taxpayer. It makes a great deal more
sense to have them IN the system than to be a ward OF the system.

"Robert Chung" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Tom Kunich said:

"Robert Chung" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Mike Murray wrote:
> For the most part here in the US the
> crisis of people lacking medical insurance is primarily an issue of
> people electing NOT to purchase rather than being unable to purchase.

Were that so, there'd be no need to call it a crisis. BTW,
http://anonymous.coward.free.fr/scpo/insured.png

BTW, what the hell do you think you're seeing with that graph?

Three things:

1. There's a lot of variability from state to state, so it doesn't make
much sense to talk about the situation "for the most part here in the US."
The situation in Minnesota is very different than the situations in Texas
or New Mexico.

I tried to find age related data for each of those states and it looks to me
like a lot of that sort of information is carefully hidden in the census
data.

My guess is that you'll find higher percentages of retired and young people
in those states with lower private insurance ownership.

That's what bothers me about this sort of data - you never get a clear
picture because someone is always trying to fulfill their agenda.

Quoted message said:

2. Public "safety net" insurance (mostly, Medicare) doesn't quite make up
for private (mostly, employer-based) insurance across states. That's not a
normative statement: I'm not saying it should make up for it -- but this
is one of the few interstate comparisons of public vs. private insurance.

3. Makes you wonder about the nature of private employment in some of
those states, don't it?

In states with VERY high illegal alien status and/or very low wages rates
the health insurance statistics are all screwed up.

"Howard Kveck" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

Tom Kunich said:

The system is as Howard states except that when you don't have the file
on
the cleat you make one up by drawing it using a production cleat to
measure
from.

Well, since the pedals (and, by extension, the accompanying cleat) are a
mainstay of Look's business, I'd be pretty stunned to find out they don't
have a drawing or CAD file on hand.

But that doesn't mean that the mold maker has the NC machine that a CAD file
just plugs into. Remember that older industries still have the manual
numerical entry or even worse, one of those X-Y coordinate things that used
a paper tape. They're still very good machines but the data entry is a
question. Over the years since I've been using Look pedals the cleats have
gotten progressively looser and looser. Finally I stopped using the Look
pedals altogether and went to all of the swap meets and picked up as many
DuraAce and Ultrgra Look-type pedals I could so that their slightly tighter
fit would keep me in the pedals on climbs.

Quoted message said:

Stranger things have happened, but
still... Reverse engineering (aka "copying"😉 is exactly how someone would
make unauthorized aftermarket ones. A smart engineer would know to
increase
the size because the shrink rates of the plastic are known (or ought to
be).

In a CAD program you can scale EVERYTHING with a single command. But first
you have to have the $45,000 program and someone that knows all the details
of how to use it.

I still prefer Look pedals to anything else and the latest cleats seem to
wear better than the older one's. I already have 2,000 miles on one set and
by now the older type would be breaking out at the rear clamp.

Tom Kunich said:

Robert Chung said:

http://anonymous.coward.free.fr/scpo/insured.png

1. There's a lot of variability from state to state, so it doesn't make
much sense to talk about the situation "for the most part here in the
US." The situation in Minnesota is very different than the situations
in Texas or New Mexico.

I tried to find age related data for each of those states and it looks
to me like a lot of that sort of information is carefully hidden in the
census data.

My guess is that you'll find higher percentages of retired and young
people in those states with lower private insurance ownership.

These are data for the non-elderly; the title of the graph tells you that.
I exclude the elderly since they're covered by Medicare. Medicaid
eligibility does indeed vary from state-to-state but in every state it
tries (sometimes more, sometimes less) to cover poor children, so the
percentages uninsured in that graph mostly tell you the story about
uninsured adults between 18 and 65.

Quoted message said:

That's what bothers me about this sort of data - you never get a clear
picture because someone is always trying to fulfill their agenda.

Sometimes it helps if you read the title of the graph and know something
about the nature of public health insurance. I made the graph not for the
ill-informed but for the semi-ill-informed: my students in a class on
health policy.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

2. Public "safety net" insurance (mostly, Medicare) doesn't quite make
up for private (mostly, employer-based) insurance across states.
That's not a normative statement: I'm not saying it should make up for
it -- but this is one of the few interstate comparisons of public vs.
private insurance.

3. Makes you wonder about the nature of private employment in some of
those states, don't it?

In states with VERY high illegal alien status and/or very low wages
rates the health insurance statistics are all screwed up.

Hmmm. They may indeed be screwed up, but these data are from the Current
Population Survey, not the Census or administrative data, so the direction
and magnitude of the screwiness isn't clear. To the extent that the CPS
misses illegal aliens or very low wage workers, they'd disappear from both
the numerator and the denominator.

So rather than correct for age structure, which you tried to do, or
illegal aliens, which you alluded to, a better thing might be to look at
characterisitics of the labor force. The US is odd among developed
countries in so heavily pegging insured status to a combination of
employment status and the characteristics of the employer rather than the
characteristics of the employed.

Mike Murray said:

Insurance companies are not economically motivated to sell people the
small premium, high deductible coverage that they really need to
prevent bankruptcy from unexpected medical losses.

They'd be killed by adverse selection. It could make sense for the Federal
government to do such a thing if the coverage were universal, and if there
were any sense in the Federal government.

Quoted message said:

Tom is correct that the only way the system can really move towards more
efficiency and prices which actually represent market values is to make
coverage more universal and to have the individual consumer participate
more in cost decisions.

I don't think the current system works like an efficient market at all, so
prices aren't good at sending the right signals.

The real question here is how will you pay the $15-20,000 bill for
appendicitis should you get that. If you pay $50/month towards that bill it
will take you 25 plus years to cover that. 7-8% of the population will get
appendicitis at some point during their life and there really is nothing
that we know of that you can do to avoid it. Add in the risk of the many
other potential medical problems that you can have and the risk of a medical
loss causing bankruptcy becomes a lot more real.

Now if you instead put the $50/month towards a high deductible insurance you
would no longer have to worry about bankruptcy related to a sudden medical
cost.

--
Mike Murray
"h squared" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Mike Murray said:

On the other hand there is a large segment of very health young people
that are not insured because they do not see that the value of insurance
since they are generally infrequent consumers of medical care.

i thought of looking for insurance after reading your previous post. the
problem is, right now i'm able to save about $50 a month for medical
costs, and another $50 for other unforeseen bills (like, our roof right
now needs fixing as the gutters aren't correctly attached and so some of
the wood has rotted. earlier in the year i had to buy a clothes dryer). so
i could maybe, if it's available, buy insurance with the $50 that i'm
currently saving for medical costs. but then, how will i pay the high
deductible when i end up needing a service as i won't be able to save up
for medical costs if i also have to pay for insurance...

so i'm not looking for insurance right now, unless there's some solution
i'm not seeing.

heather

Tom is correct about the uninsurable, although one can argue about whether
the uninsurable specifically are a bigger problem than the uninsured in
general. In my experience there are LOTS of people that could buy insurance
but who choose not to. Eventually they develop medical problems that make
it impossible to get insurance since we all will eventually get those
problems eventually. Some people have those problems from the start, like
Tom's ex-brother-in-law with pulmonary atresia, but most acquire the
problems later in life after a point when they could have purchased
insurance.

The other point is that the uninsured not only fall back on the state to
cover their medical cost they also drive up the cost of care for the people
that do pay. The real key is that with the current system the poor don't
pay, the governmental payers pay discounted amounts, the insured pay
discounted amounts and the people paying out of their pockets pay an
inflated amount. This whole system makes it so that the "sticker price" is
roughly 3-5 times the actual market value. If the system had everyone
paying, everyone participating in the shared cost and usual free market
controls on prices we would all be a lot better off.

--
Mike Murray

"Tom Kunich" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"Mike Murray" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"Tom Kunich" <[email hidden]> wrote:
"Most of the insurance in this country is for the healthiest segment of
the population - those working."

On the other hand there is a large segment of very health young people
that are not insured because they do not see that the value of insurance
since they are generally infrequent consumers of medical care.

Absolutely, but that isn't he heart of the problem. The real problem is
new families who can't get insurance or those who have some relatively
minor health problems that disqualify them from medical insurance, such as
diabetis or high blood pressure that could cause problems 20 years down
the line but who cannot get and maintain insurance now.

My ex-brother-in-law was born without a pulmonary artery. He lived to 42
with that condition. He was lucky enough to get Kaiser at some time during
his early employment when they didn't ask embarassing questions and he
then held on to it forever after. Kaiser was doing absolutely everything
to try and shake him off but he held on tighter than a leech. Finally he
had them transplant a section of heart with a pulmonary artery on it and
for the first time in his life his blood oxygen was 98% instead of 72% or
lower (I didn't think anyone could live like that!) He's now in his 50's
and still has that Kaiser insurance and they're still crying every time
his name comes up.

He's a stupid jerk but I hope he lives to be 100.

Quoted message said:

Insurance companies are not economically motivated to sell people the
small premium, high deductible coverage that they really need to prevent
bankruptcy from unexpected medical losses. They would rather spend their
efforts selling high premium comprehensive group plans since the profit
margin for the effort invested is much higher. If you think about it the
comprehensive medical insurance plan that people often get from their
employers are rather like if you purchase car insurance which not only
covered accidents but also regular maintenance, tires, gas and even
purchase of the automobile. Add that to the fact that shopping for
medical care based on cost is nearly impossible it is easy to see why the
system has spiraled out of control. If insurance covered all your auto
costs, including purchase, and you got your insurance from you employer
would you be driving the same car the same amount or would you be more
likely to buy a bigger, fancier car and drive it more frequently.

BUT the insurance business is a GOOD business. It just has some screwy
priorities that it has to get straight (Capitalistic systems are basically
moral and ethical but they can be twisted as anything else.) Insurance
allows a whole group to prepare for the unexpected so that the load is
shared. A government can't do this with any efficiency because no one in a
government cares what anything costs.

Quoted message said:

Tom is correct that the only way the system can really move towards more
efficiency and prices which actually represent market values is to make
coverage more universal and to have the individual consumer participate
more in cost decisions.

We have to remember that when these people are uninsured, they fall back
onto the insurer of last resort - the taxpayer. It makes a great deal more
sense to have them IN the system than to be a ward OF the system.

I couldn't agree with this more.

--
Mike Murray
"Robert Chung" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Mike Murray said:

Insurance companies are not economically motivated to sell people the
small premium, high deductible coverage that they really need to
prevent bankruptcy from unexpected medical losses.

They'd be killed by adverse selection. It could make sense for the Federal
government to do such a thing if the coverage were universal, and if there
were any sense in the Federal government.

Quoted message said:

Tom is correct that the only way the system can really move towards more
efficiency and prices which actually represent market values is to make
coverage more universal and to have the individual consumer participate
more in cost decisions.

I don't think the current system works like an efficient market at all, so
prices aren't good at sending the right signals.

Mike Murray said:

The real question here is how will you pay the $15-20,000 bill for
appendicitis should you get that. If you pay $50/month towards that bill it
will take you 25 plus years to cover that. 7-8% of the population will get
appendicitis at some point during their life and there really is nothing
that we know of that you can do to avoid it. Add in the risk of the many
other potential medical problems that you can have and the risk of a medical
loss causing bankruptcy becomes a lot more real.

Now if you instead put the $50/month towards a high deductible insurance you
would no longer have to worry about bankruptcy related to a sudden medical
cost.

well, i did tell my boyfriend that i don't ever want to be admitted to
the hospital, and if i have to be admitted in order to have surgery, i
want him to come and take me out of there as soon as i'm awake.

if i follow your advice, then i won't ever be able to get my teeth
filled if i get a cavity (because i will have no money to pay for it,
the dentist is cash on delivery you know, etc). and i did once go 5
years without seeing a dentist because i had no money to do so. isn't
getting your immediate medical needs met more important than avoiding
bankruptcy? i never borrow money, bankruptcy wouldn't be the end of the
world (afaik..)

is there insurance that only costs $50 a month? (you seemed to know
about it so i'm asking if you know a good one, just in case). if i did
make this strange sacrifice, i would want something that didn't have a
limit on what it would pay. i've heard stories of people who had to file
bankruptcy because their insurance would only pay for a certain amount
and they had to exceed it 🙁

heather

h squared said:

bankruptcy? i never borrow money, bankruptcy wouldn't be the end of

the

Quoted message said:

world (afaik..)

It may be closer to that end than you think. Bankrupty stays on your
credit history for quite a while and even if you don't borrow money it
could effect your ability to rent and/or get a new job.

While bankrptcy is a reasonable (and perhaps the only) option in some
situations it is not a free good and that decsion should not be taken
lightly.

That said, many credit givers will be more understanding of problems
paying off medical bills and view that as a bit different from just
running up creedit charges at Macy's.

But if you can afford it insurance is certainly helpfull.

gds said:

While bankrptcy is a reasonable (and perhaps the only) option in some
situations it is not a free good and that decsion should not be taken
lightly.

well, it's definitely not something i strive for 😉

Quoted message said:

That said, many credit givers will be more understanding of problems
paying off medical bills and view that as a bit different from just
running up creedit charges at Macy's.

But if you can afford it insurance is certainly helpfull.

check!

h

"h squared" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Mike Murray said:

The real question here is how will you pay the $15-20,000 bill for
appendicitis should you get that. If you pay $50/month towards that bill
it will take you 25 plus years to cover that. 7-8% of the population will
get appendicitis at some point during their life and there really is
nothing that we know of that you can do to avoid it. Add in the risk of
the many other potential medical problems that you can have and the risk
of a medical loss causing bankruptcy becomes a lot more real.

Now if you instead put the $50/month towards a high deductible insurance
you would no longer have to worry about bankruptcy related to a sudden
medical cost.

well, i did tell my boyfriend that i don't ever want to be admitted to the
hospital, and if i have to be admitted in order to have surgery, i want
him to come and take me out of there as soon as i'm awake.

if i follow your advice, then i won't ever be able to get my teeth filled
if i get a cavity (because i will have no money to pay for it, the dentist
is cash on delivery you know, etc). and i did once go 5 years without
seeing a dentist because i had no money to do so. isn't getting your
immediate medical needs met more important than avoiding bankruptcy? i
never borrow money, bankruptcy wouldn't be the end of the world (afaik..)

Geez Heather, why don't you either get a better paying job (In Seattle?
SURE!) or get a boyfriend that can actually make a living?

"Robert Chung" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Tom Kunich said:

A government can't do this with any efficiency
because no one in a government cares what anything costs.

Well, it's possible that rather than "a" government, you meant "our"
government, whose Executive branch, Senate, and House are all controlled
by Republicans.

Robert, then by all means if you need a major operation for a serious
illness get treated in Denmark or Poland.

In article <[email hidden]>,

Tom Kunich said:

But that doesn't mean that the mold maker has the NC machine that a CAD file
just plugs into. Remember that older industries still have the manual
numerical entry or even worse, one of those X-Y coordinate things that used
a paper tape. They're still very good machines but the data entry is a
question.

Well, I'm speculating here, but I feel pretty certain when I say that
almost all mold makers either have or have access to a reasonable CNC mill,
unless they know they'll be only making very simple molds. Those older
machines have been moved back to doing jobs that they're better suited for
(simpler stuff), or sold to third-world shops. Newer machines have gotten
fairly inexpensive and have good controls that'll do simultaneous three (or
more) axis cuts without batting an eye (so to speak). And that kind of
movement is one of the reasons why it's gotten easier to make parts (and
molds) with very complex shapes quickly and relatively easily.

I've worked in shops where older machines have been retrofitted with new
controls and servos, too. I haven't seen a tape reader machine in at least
12 years, though I know of shops with them.

A CAD file is imported into a CAM (computer aided machining) application
(or is created right in the CAD/CAM app), and then the programmer uses that
to make tool paths and create code that the CNC control understands.

Quoted message said:

In a CAD program you can scale EVERYTHING with a single command. But first
you have to have the $45,000 program and someone that knows all the details
of how to use it.

A lot of CNC machine controls have scaling in them. CAD/CAM programs
*can* be that (and more) expensive, but there are many that are very
functional for far less, like in the $3-4k range. Some of the most commonly
used ones (like Mastercam or Gibbs) can be had for less than $10k. And they
aren't all that hard to use if you spend the time to figure it out. The
devil's in the details, of course...

--
tanx,
Howard

Butter is love.

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

Tom Kunich said:

"Robert Chung" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Tom Kunich said:

A government can't do this with any efficiency
because no one in a government cares what anything costs.

Well, it's possible that rather than "a" government, you meant "our"
government, whose Executive branch, Senate, and House are all
controlled by Republicans.

Robert, then by all means if you need a major operation for a serious
illness get treated in Denmark or Poland.

Oh, Tom. How long have you been under the misperception that the only
three governments in the world are the US, Denmark, and Poland?