<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_03_05_1455212</id>
	<title>Vivek Kundra On US Government Inefficiency</title>
	<author>kdawson</author>
	<datestamp>1267809840000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>parkland writes <i>"Federal CIO Vivek Kundra described some dismaying government inefficiencies in a speech on Thursday at the University of Washington's Evans School of Public Affairs in Seattle. It takes <a href="http://www.itworld.com/government/99069/federal-cio-describes-problems-changes-it">160 days to process benefits for veterans</a>, he said, 'because the Veteran's Administration is processing paperwork by passing manila folders from one desk to another.' Another example bound to make you grind your teeth is why it takes the Patent and Trademark Office 3 years to process a patent. 'One reason,' says Kundra, 'is because the USPTO receives these applications online, prints them out, and then someone manually rekeys the information into an antiquated system.'"</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>parkland writes " Federal CIO Vivek Kundra described some dismaying government inefficiencies in a speech on Thursday at the University of Washington 's Evans School of Public Affairs in Seattle .
It takes 160 days to process benefits for veterans , he said , 'because the Veteran 's Administration is processing paperwork by passing manila folders from one desk to another .
' Another example bound to make you grind your teeth is why it takes the Patent and Trademark Office 3 years to process a patent .
'One reason, ' says Kundra , 'is because the USPTO receives these applications online , prints them out , and then someone manually rekeys the information into an antiquated system .
' "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>parkland writes "Federal CIO Vivek Kundra described some dismaying government inefficiencies in a speech on Thursday at the University of Washington's Evans School of Public Affairs in Seattle.
It takes 160 days to process benefits for veterans, he said, 'because the Veteran's Administration is processing paperwork by passing manila folders from one desk to another.
' Another example bound to make you grind your teeth is why it takes the Patent and Trademark Office 3 years to process a patent.
'One reason,' says Kundra, 'is because the USPTO receives these applications online, prints them out, and then someone manually rekeys the information into an antiquated system.
'"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1455212.31375642</id>
	<title>Re:Healthcare</title>
	<author>TheSync</author>
	<datestamp>1267783980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>So if the government is a bunch of incompetent, inefficient morons who can never be as good as private industry, then why the hell do you care if they give people the OPTION of choosing a government plan?</i></p><p>Because the government will subsidize the public option and put additional regulations on the private market to ensure that the public option becomes the only option.  Even if this is not how the option starts out, it will be how it goes.  Much like how Medicare has expanded over the years to include things like the drug benefit.</p><p>Also see public schools versus private schools in the US, or NHS versus private doctors in the UK.</p><p>In truth, I expect the evolution of the "public option" to put serious reductions on doctor pay (as we see in all European/Canadian health systems).   A private insurance company can try to negotiate lower doctor pay (and they try), but only the government can mandate it.   I'm wary, but I don't know exactly what will happen to our doctor pool if US doctor pay is reduced to European levels.  Maybe nothing.  Maybe something bad.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So if the government is a bunch of incompetent , inefficient morons who can never be as good as private industry , then why the hell do you care if they give people the OPTION of choosing a government plan ? Because the government will subsidize the public option and put additional regulations on the private market to ensure that the public option becomes the only option .
Even if this is not how the option starts out , it will be how it goes .
Much like how Medicare has expanded over the years to include things like the drug benefit.Also see public schools versus private schools in the US , or NHS versus private doctors in the UK.In truth , I expect the evolution of the " public option " to put serious reductions on doctor pay ( as we see in all European/Canadian health systems ) .
A private insurance company can try to negotiate lower doctor pay ( and they try ) , but only the government can mandate it .
I 'm wary , but I do n't know exactly what will happen to our doctor pool if US doctor pay is reduced to European levels .
Maybe nothing .
Maybe something bad .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So if the government is a bunch of incompetent, inefficient morons who can never be as good as private industry, then why the hell do you care if they give people the OPTION of choosing a government plan?Because the government will subsidize the public option and put additional regulations on the private market to ensure that the public option becomes the only option.
Even if this is not how the option starts out, it will be how it goes.
Much like how Medicare has expanded over the years to include things like the drug benefit.Also see public schools versus private schools in the US, or NHS versus private doctors in the UK.In truth, I expect the evolution of the "public option" to put serious reductions on doctor pay (as we see in all European/Canadian health systems).
A private insurance company can try to negotiate lower doctor pay (and they try), but only the government can mandate it.
I'm wary, but I don't know exactly what will happen to our doctor pool if US doctor pay is reduced to European levels.
Maybe nothing.
Maybe something bad.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1455212.31373242</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1455212.31373480</id>
	<title>Re:Healthcare</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267816560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Let me get this straight.  You see the objections that people have when they TALK about chaning healthcare.  You see protests, yelling, screaming, false lies about "death panels", and tons of other crap.  You see Democrats losing MASSACHUSETS, the home of the Kennedies over the health care bill?
<p>
<b>And your take from all this is that Obama will somehow parlay a healthcare change to CONSOLIDATE power over the USA?</b>
</p><p>
God, I hope and pray the terrorists are as foolish and bad at planning as you are.  Because only a total moron would expect that a bad health care bill would increase the Democrats power.
</p><p>If the healthcare gets passed and what you think will happen happens, then Obama will be unemployed in 3 more years.  Obama's best chane for more power is if the bill gets passed and people like it.
</p><p>Of course, you are probably one of those paranoid fools that thought Obama would outlaw guns and ammo. Their paranoia has driven up the prices of ammo more than double, making many guns and ammo out of stock while Obama has done.  NOTHING, ABSOLUTLY NOTHING.  Not a single bit of their paranoid fears have come true.  Why?  Because they listened to people like you instead of actually paying attention to what the Democrats were saying.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Let me get this straight .
You see the objections that people have when they TALK about chaning healthcare .
You see protests , yelling , screaming , false lies about " death panels " , and tons of other crap .
You see Democrats losing MASSACHUSETS , the home of the Kennedies over the health care bill ?
And your take from all this is that Obama will somehow parlay a healthcare change to CONSOLIDATE power over the USA ?
God , I hope and pray the terrorists are as foolish and bad at planning as you are .
Because only a total moron would expect that a bad health care bill would increase the Democrats power .
If the healthcare gets passed and what you think will happen happens , then Obama will be unemployed in 3 more years .
Obama 's best chane for more power is if the bill gets passed and people like it .
Of course , you are probably one of those paranoid fools that thought Obama would outlaw guns and ammo .
Their paranoia has driven up the prices of ammo more than double , making many guns and ammo out of stock while Obama has done .
NOTHING , ABSOLUTLY NOTHING .
Not a single bit of their paranoid fears have come true .
Why ? Because they listened to people like you instead of actually paying attention to what the Democrats were saying .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Let me get this straight.
You see the objections that people have when they TALK about chaning healthcare.
You see protests, yelling, screaming, false lies about "death panels", and tons of other crap.
You see Democrats losing MASSACHUSETS, the home of the Kennedies over the health care bill?
And your take from all this is that Obama will somehow parlay a healthcare change to CONSOLIDATE power over the USA?
God, I hope and pray the terrorists are as foolish and bad at planning as you are.
Because only a total moron would expect that a bad health care bill would increase the Democrats power.
If the healthcare gets passed and what you think will happen happens, then Obama will be unemployed in 3 more years.
Obama's best chane for more power is if the bill gets passed and people like it.
Of course, you are probably one of those paranoid fools that thought Obama would outlaw guns and ammo.
Their paranoia has driven up the prices of ammo more than double, making many guns and ammo out of stock while Obama has done.
NOTHING, ABSOLUTLY NOTHING.
Not a single bit of their paranoid fears have come true.
Why?  Because they listened to people like you instead of actually paying attention to what the Democrats were saying.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1455212.31373118</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1455212.31373420</id>
	<title>Re:Possibly another reason</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267816260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Apparently you've never heard the phrase "good enough for government work".</htmltext>
<tokenext>Apparently you 've never heard the phrase " good enough for government work " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Apparently you've never heard the phrase "good enough for government work".</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1455212.31372994</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1455212.31373384</id>
	<title>Inaccurate about the Patent Office</title>
	<author>Grond</author>
	<datestamp>1267816200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The Patent Office does not do that and hasn't for years, except of course for papers that are mailed or faxed in.  The Patent Office's <a href="http://www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/index.jsp" title="uspto.gov">Electronic Filing System</a> [uspto.gov] is an end-to-end electronic system for the most part.</p><p>Now, the EFS system does convert searchable PDFs to bitmap PDFs, which causes them to lose their searchability and greatly increases the file size, which is still incredibly backwards, but not quite as bad as printing things out and scanning them back in.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The Patent Office does not do that and has n't for years , except of course for papers that are mailed or faxed in .
The Patent Office 's Electronic Filing System [ uspto.gov ] is an end-to-end electronic system for the most part.Now , the EFS system does convert searchable PDFs to bitmap PDFs , which causes them to lose their searchability and greatly increases the file size , which is still incredibly backwards , but not quite as bad as printing things out and scanning them back in .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Patent Office does not do that and hasn't for years, except of course for papers that are mailed or faxed in.
The Patent Office's Electronic Filing System [uspto.gov] is an end-to-end electronic system for the most part.Now, the EFS system does convert searchable PDFs to bitmap PDFs, which causes them to lose their searchability and greatly increases the file size, which is still incredibly backwards, but not quite as bad as printing things out and scanning them back in.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1455212.31375454</id>
	<title>Re:Healthcare</title>
	<author>mcgrew</author>
	<datestamp>1267782900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Also, unlike insuranbce companies, government doesn't have multi million dollar salaries to pay to top executives, and don't have stockholders to pay dividends to. If you do away with insurance, you do away with a huge part of the cost of health care.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Also , unlike insuranbce companies , government does n't have multi million dollar salaries to pay to top executives , and do n't have stockholders to pay dividends to .
If you do away with insurance , you do away with a huge part of the cost of health care .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Also, unlike insuranbce companies, government doesn't have multi million dollar salaries to pay to top executives, and don't have stockholders to pay dividends to.
If you do away with insurance, you do away with a huge part of the cost of health care.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1455212.31373142</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1455212.31373164</id>
	<title>Re:Healthcare</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267815180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Couple of points:</p><ol><li>The situation with Medicare is actually improving.  They contract the work out, and are seeing increased competition/efficiency as a result.</li><li>Whatever the healthcare reform, the government will do little of the actual work.  They will contract it out, regardless of whether it's single payer, public option, the exchange system, etc.</li><li>We have had a long-term deficiency in the progress department in both the public and private sectors.  Whether government or private (preferably both), that must change.</li></ol><p>But it's <em>very</em> convenient to simply claim that the government sucks and that they want to ruin everything.  It's true that the government needs to be managed more effectively, but you have to be a shill if you aren't willing to admit that large corporations are just as inept and screw people over just as readily.</p><p>In closing, please compare our healthcare costs/outcomes to the rest of the world. They have much lower costs and still manage better outcomes.  If our system is this broken, and you claim that it cannot function as theirs, then I suggest it is time we replace it.  I believe our government just needs tweaking, but you may feel otherwise.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Couple of points : The situation with Medicare is actually improving .
They contract the work out , and are seeing increased competition/efficiency as a result.Whatever the healthcare reform , the government will do little of the actual work .
They will contract it out , regardless of whether it 's single payer , public option , the exchange system , etc.We have had a long-term deficiency in the progress department in both the public and private sectors .
Whether government or private ( preferably both ) , that must change.But it 's very convenient to simply claim that the government sucks and that they want to ruin everything .
It 's true that the government needs to be managed more effectively , but you have to be a shill if you are n't willing to admit that large corporations are just as inept and screw people over just as readily.In closing , please compare our healthcare costs/outcomes to the rest of the world .
They have much lower costs and still manage better outcomes .
If our system is this broken , and you claim that it can not function as theirs , then I suggest it is time we replace it .
I believe our government just needs tweaking , but you may feel otherwise .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Couple of points:The situation with Medicare is actually improving.
They contract the work out, and are seeing increased competition/efficiency as a result.Whatever the healthcare reform, the government will do little of the actual work.
They will contract it out, regardless of whether it's single payer, public option, the exchange system, etc.We have had a long-term deficiency in the progress department in both the public and private sectors.
Whether government or private (preferably both), that must change.But it's very convenient to simply claim that the government sucks and that they want to ruin everything.
It's true that the government needs to be managed more effectively, but you have to be a shill if you aren't willing to admit that large corporations are just as inept and screw people over just as readily.In closing, please compare our healthcare costs/outcomes to the rest of the world.
They have much lower costs and still manage better outcomes.
If our system is this broken, and you claim that it cannot function as theirs, then I suggest it is time we replace it.
I believe our government just needs tweaking, but you may feel otherwise.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1455212.31372896</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1455212.31373000</id>
	<title>Caused by the Culture</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267814400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This tends to be a real cultural problem, with several cultural contributing factors. These include:<br>1.  Resistance to change.<br>2. Resistance to cutting positions.  Many govmnt people would rather do a boring inefficient job than have no job.  They are there for the benefits and pay check, not the reward of a job well done.  The unions support this because more employees equal more power.  The departments support it for the same reason.<br>3. All efficiency programs tend to be big bang, big buck efforts with a majority doomed to failure.  The idea is that everything needs to be fixed at once, or not at all.  Besides, it is a lot easier getting $20million for a big project that $10,000 for a quick easy fix that would make a significant difference but not take care of all of the world's ills.<br>4. Many of the people in govnmt have no real concept of where to begin and when they want to do something, the system means that they eaither hire someone with the same govmnt experience and mindset, or they turn to one of the big consulting firms which design their solutions to milk the most money out of the govnment rather than actually solve the problems.  The proposals get written to encourage this as well.</p><p>The surprise is not that the inefficiencies exist, it is that many of them have actually been resolved.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This tends to be a real cultural problem , with several cultural contributing factors .
These include : 1 .
Resistance to change.2 .
Resistance to cutting positions .
Many govmnt people would rather do a boring inefficient job than have no job .
They are there for the benefits and pay check , not the reward of a job well done .
The unions support this because more employees equal more power .
The departments support it for the same reason.3 .
All efficiency programs tend to be big bang , big buck efforts with a majority doomed to failure .
The idea is that everything needs to be fixed at once , or not at all .
Besides , it is a lot easier getting $ 20million for a big project that $ 10,000 for a quick easy fix that would make a significant difference but not take care of all of the world 's ills.4 .
Many of the people in govnmt have no real concept of where to begin and when they want to do something , the system means that they eaither hire someone with the same govmnt experience and mindset , or they turn to one of the big consulting firms which design their solutions to milk the most money out of the govnment rather than actually solve the problems .
The proposals get written to encourage this as well.The surprise is not that the inefficiencies exist , it is that many of them have actually been resolved .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This tends to be a real cultural problem, with several cultural contributing factors.
These include:1.
Resistance to change.2.
Resistance to cutting positions.
Many govmnt people would rather do a boring inefficient job than have no job.
They are there for the benefits and pay check, not the reward of a job well done.
The unions support this because more employees equal more power.
The departments support it for the same reason.3.
All efficiency programs tend to be big bang, big buck efforts with a majority doomed to failure.
The idea is that everything needs to be fixed at once, or not at all.
Besides, it is a lot easier getting $20million for a big project that $10,000 for a quick easy fix that would make a significant difference but not take care of all of the world's ills.4.
Many of the people in govnmt have no real concept of where to begin and when they want to do something, the system means that they eaither hire someone with the same govmnt experience and mindset, or they turn to one of the big consulting firms which design their solutions to milk the most money out of the govnment rather than actually solve the problems.
The proposals get written to encourage this as well.The surprise is not that the inefficiencies exist, it is that many of them have actually been resolved.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1455212.31374096</id>
	<title>Re:Possibly another reason</title>
	<author>crispytwo</author>
	<datestamp>1267819380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There is no such thing as a <i>normal company</i>. You assume that a normal company cares about being efficient -- WRONG -- lip service to it, maybe, but actually - no. I have never seen nor experienced any company that actually cares about being as efficient as possible.</p><p>Companies are there to make money. If something is working, it continues in that way until it isn't.</p><p>The government is no different in that sense; if something is working, it continues in that way until it isn't. The main difference is that complaints about 'changing my job' or 'I won't have a job' weigh heavy on the government managers minds where it weighs less on a company's managers minds -- smaller companies can change more rapidly than big ones. Smaller government agencies can change more rapidly than big ones.</p><p>There is little difference between big companies and big government. The major one difference is that the government is (supposedly) there for the people and the company is (definitely) there for the company.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There is no such thing as a normal company .
You assume that a normal company cares about being efficient -- WRONG -- lip service to it , maybe , but actually - no .
I have never seen nor experienced any company that actually cares about being as efficient as possible.Companies are there to make money .
If something is working , it continues in that way until it is n't.The government is no different in that sense ; if something is working , it continues in that way until it is n't .
The main difference is that complaints about 'changing my job ' or 'I wo n't have a job ' weigh heavy on the government managers minds where it weighs less on a company 's managers minds -- smaller companies can change more rapidly than big ones .
Smaller government agencies can change more rapidly than big ones.There is little difference between big companies and big government .
The major one difference is that the government is ( supposedly ) there for the people and the company is ( definitely ) there for the company .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There is no such thing as a normal company.
You assume that a normal company cares about being efficient -- WRONG -- lip service to it, maybe, but actually - no.
I have never seen nor experienced any company that actually cares about being as efficient as possible.Companies are there to make money.
If something is working, it continues in that way until it isn't.The government is no different in that sense; if something is working, it continues in that way until it isn't.
The main difference is that complaints about 'changing my job' or 'I won't have a job' weigh heavy on the government managers minds where it weighs less on a company's managers minds -- smaller companies can change more rapidly than big ones.
Smaller government agencies can change more rapidly than big ones.There is little difference between big companies and big government.
The major one difference is that the government is (supposedly) there for the people and the company is (definitely) there for the company.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1455212.31373166</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1455212.31373252</id>
	<title>Re:Healthcare</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267815480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>A single-payer system would eliminate a LOT of inefficiency at the doctor's office level in handling all the differences in the way insurance companies require you to submit claims.</p></div><p>I can relate to that. Whenever I pay cash for medical treatment (since I can't get insurance) the doctors and nurses are delighted that they don't have to jump through a bunch of hoops and instead can give me exactly what I need.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>A single-payer system would eliminate a LOT of inefficiency at the doctor 's office level in handling all the differences in the way insurance companies require you to submit claims.I can relate to that .
Whenever I pay cash for medical treatment ( since I ca n't get insurance ) the doctors and nurses are delighted that they do n't have to jump through a bunch of hoops and instead can give me exactly what I need .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A single-payer system would eliminate a LOT of inefficiency at the doctor's office level in handling all the differences in the way insurance companies require you to submit claims.I can relate to that.
Whenever I pay cash for medical treatment (since I can't get insurance) the doctors and nurses are delighted that they don't have to jump through a bunch of hoops and instead can give me exactly what I need.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1455212.31373142</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1455212.31373718</id>
	<title>Re:Possibly another reason</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267817580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I looked carefully at the original purpose of the Federal government and found these words:<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense,  promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty..</p><p>No where is there a reference to "efficiency". In fact, I believe a certain amount of government inefficiency enhances liberty.</p><p>In any case our elected officials are ultimately responsible for any inefficiencies. That fact that most elected officials are elected for life indicates that people just don't care.<br>What most people care about is money. That is they constantly complain about outgoing taxes but are eager to gobble up Social Security and Medicare checks , Farmer subsidies etc.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I looked carefully at the original purpose of the Federal government and found these words : ... establish Justice , insure domestic Tranquility , provide for the common defense , promote the general Welfare , and secure the Blessings of Liberty..No where is there a reference to " efficiency " .
In fact , I believe a certain amount of government inefficiency enhances liberty.In any case our elected officials are ultimately responsible for any inefficiencies .
That fact that most elected officials are elected for life indicates that people just do n't care.What most people care about is money .
That is they constantly complain about outgoing taxes but are eager to gobble up Social Security and Medicare checks , Farmer subsidies etc .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I looked carefully at the original purpose of the Federal government and found these words: ... establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense,  promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty..No where is there a reference to "efficiency".
In fact, I believe a certain amount of government inefficiency enhances liberty.In any case our elected officials are ultimately responsible for any inefficiencies.
That fact that most elected officials are elected for life indicates that people just don't care.What most people care about is money.
That is they constantly complain about outgoing taxes but are eager to gobble up Social Security and Medicare checks , Farmer subsidies etc.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1455212.31373062</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1455212.31373418</id>
	<title>"Cure" worse than disease?</title>
	<author>walterbyrd</author>
	<datestamp>1267816260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How many mega-disasters have we read about here on slashdot that go like this: some government wanted to upgrade their outdated system, so they hired some ultra-expensive contracting company. The project went way over-budget and took way longer than estimated. By the time it was done, it was obsolete. Besides being obsolete, nothing worked correctly. The government spent insane mega-bucks to try and fix the borked project, but everything was too horridly broken to fix. So they decided to spend more mega-bucks to go back to the old system.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How many mega-disasters have we read about here on slashdot that go like this : some government wanted to upgrade their outdated system , so they hired some ultra-expensive contracting company .
The project went way over-budget and took way longer than estimated .
By the time it was done , it was obsolete .
Besides being obsolete , nothing worked correctly .
The government spent insane mega-bucks to try and fix the borked project , but everything was too horridly broken to fix .
So they decided to spend more mega-bucks to go back to the old system .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How many mega-disasters have we read about here on slashdot that go like this: some government wanted to upgrade their outdated system, so they hired some ultra-expensive contracting company.
The project went way over-budget and took way longer than estimated.
By the time it was done, it was obsolete.
Besides being obsolete, nothing worked correctly.
The government spent insane mega-bucks to try and fix the borked project, but everything was too horridly broken to fix.
So they decided to spend more mega-bucks to go back to the old system.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1455212.31373130</id>
	<title>Re:Healthcare</title>
	<author>kiwimn</author>
	<datestamp>1267815000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Have you ever dealt with the bureaucracy of health insurance companies? How the added paperwork from shit like health care reimbursement accounts?

Walk into a doctors office here, get a few tests, and you're likely to get three different bills in the mail. I would MUCH rather have a system where I walk in, get seen, and bugger off home never to see a bill, because I already paid for it with my taxes.

Why? Because I recognise that one day I could be the person without health insurance wondering how the hell I am going to pay for getting my kid seen.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Have you ever dealt with the bureaucracy of health insurance companies ?
How the added paperwork from shit like health care reimbursement accounts ?
Walk into a doctors office here , get a few tests , and you 're likely to get three different bills in the mail .
I would MUCH rather have a system where I walk in , get seen , and bugger off home never to see a bill , because I already paid for it with my taxes .
Why ? Because I recognise that one day I could be the person without health insurance wondering how the hell I am going to pay for getting my kid seen .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Have you ever dealt with the bureaucracy of health insurance companies?
How the added paperwork from shit like health care reimbursement accounts?
Walk into a doctors office here, get a few tests, and you're likely to get three different bills in the mail.
I would MUCH rather have a system where I walk in, get seen, and bugger off home never to see a bill, because I already paid for it with my taxes.
Why? Because I recognise that one day I could be the person without health insurance wondering how the hell I am going to pay for getting my kid seen.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1455212.31372896</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1455212.31373984</id>
	<title>Re:Possibly another reason</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267818900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Apparently you've never heard the phrase "good enough for government work".</p></div></blockquote><p>World War II called, it wants its meme back.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Apparently you 've never heard the phrase " good enough for government work " .World War II called , it wants its meme back .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Apparently you've never heard the phrase "good enough for government work".World War II called, it wants its meme back.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1455212.31373420</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1455212.31373106</id>
	<title>Great....but</title>
	<author>andy1307</author>
	<datestamp>1267814880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It's a good thing that he's identified the problem....but..he has no budgetary authority to influence the VA's IT spending decisions. If the VA does decide to upgrade their systems, it's the beltway bandits that will influence the choice of software..not Kundra.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's a good thing that he 's identified the problem....but..he has no budgetary authority to influence the VA 's IT spending decisions .
If the VA does decide to upgrade their systems , it 's the beltway bandits that will influence the choice of software..not Kundra .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's a good thing that he's identified the problem....but..he has no budgetary authority to influence the VA's IT spending decisions.
If the VA does decide to upgrade their systems, it's the beltway bandits that will influence the choice of software..not Kundra.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1455212.31375388</id>
	<title>Re:Possibly another reason</title>
	<author>Daniel Dvorkin</author>
	<datestamp>1267782480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>When was the last time you ever heard a politician say, "government is inefficient, and here is how we can make it more efficient!"</p></div><p> <a href="http://govinfo.library.unt.edu/npr/whoweare/historyofnpr.html" title="unt.edu">Clinton did say that</a> [unt.edu], and he did a pretty good job of it, too.  Of course, the effort was mocked and obstructed by the Republicans, who promptly undid everything the Clinton administration had accomplished as when Bush took office.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>When was the last time you ever heard a politician say , " government is inefficient , and here is how we can make it more efficient !
" Clinton did say that [ unt.edu ] , and he did a pretty good job of it , too .
Of course , the effort was mocked and obstructed by the Republicans , who promptly undid everything the Clinton administration had accomplished as when Bush took office .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When was the last time you ever heard a politician say, "government is inefficient, and here is how we can make it more efficient!
" Clinton did say that [unt.edu], and he did a pretty good job of it, too.
Of course, the effort was mocked and obstructed by the Republicans, who promptly undid everything the Clinton administration had accomplished as when Bush took office.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1455212.31373170</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1455212.31374198</id>
	<title>Re:Possibly another reason</title>
	<author>mcgrew</author>
	<datestamp>1267819740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I have an old friend who works for the post office (he repairs mail boxes), and your list is valid except for item 3. Mike's union is all for the government giving its members more training, as long as they're getting paid for the training. And they can't be "outright let go" without cause; layoffs must be by seniority.</p><p>He gets paid a lot better than me, I wish I had HIS union! Of course, his job is physical and not much fun, while I screw around with computers all day, so it evens itself out I guess. Money isn't everything.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I have an old friend who works for the post office ( he repairs mail boxes ) , and your list is valid except for item 3 .
Mike 's union is all for the government giving its members more training , as long as they 're getting paid for the training .
And they ca n't be " outright let go " without cause ; layoffs must be by seniority.He gets paid a lot better than me , I wish I had HIS union !
Of course , his job is physical and not much fun , while I screw around with computers all day , so it evens itself out I guess .
Money is n't everything .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have an old friend who works for the post office (he repairs mail boxes), and your list is valid except for item 3.
Mike's union is all for the government giving its members more training, as long as they're getting paid for the training.
And they can't be "outright let go" without cause; layoffs must be by seniority.He gets paid a lot better than me, I wish I had HIS union!
Of course, his job is physical and not much fun, while I screw around with computers all day, so it evens itself out I guess.
Money isn't everything.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1455212.31373062</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1455212.31373242</id>
	<title>Re:Healthcare</title>
	<author>QuantumRiff</author>
	<datestamp>1267815480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So if the government is a bunch of incompetent, inefficient morons who can never be as good as private industry, then why the hell do you care if they give people the OPTION of choosing a government plan?</p><p>It should be obvious to you and your "its cool/trendy/rebelious to be libertarian**" buddies that the government plan will not have anyone sign up for it, and will flop.  The Private plans will be cheaper, cover more people, and be fast to respond to needs of their wonderful customers!</p><p>Right?  So where is the objection?</p><p>**I have been a registered Libertarian for 16 years.. I would love if anyone that lately claims to be a libertarian cause they got tired of being republican could actually state where the party stands on many issues.. And I'm getting tired of all the anger, lies, and misdirection lately.. Politics is just getting nasty...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So if the government is a bunch of incompetent , inefficient morons who can never be as good as private industry , then why the hell do you care if they give people the OPTION of choosing a government plan ? It should be obvious to you and your " its cool/trendy/rebelious to be libertarian * * " buddies that the government plan will not have anyone sign up for it , and will flop .
The Private plans will be cheaper , cover more people , and be fast to respond to needs of their wonderful customers ! Right ?
So where is the objection ?
* * I have been a registered Libertarian for 16 years.. I would love if anyone that lately claims to be a libertarian cause they got tired of being republican could actually state where the party stands on many issues.. And I 'm getting tired of all the anger , lies , and misdirection lately.. Politics is just getting nasty.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So if the government is a bunch of incompetent, inefficient morons who can never be as good as private industry, then why the hell do you care if they give people the OPTION of choosing a government plan?It should be obvious to you and your "its cool/trendy/rebelious to be libertarian**" buddies that the government plan will not have anyone sign up for it, and will flop.
The Private plans will be cheaper, cover more people, and be fast to respond to needs of their wonderful customers!Right?
So where is the objection?
**I have been a registered Libertarian for 16 years.. I would love if anyone that lately claims to be a libertarian cause they got tired of being republican could actually state where the party stands on many issues.. And I'm getting tired of all the anger, lies, and misdirection lately.. Politics is just getting nasty...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1455212.31372896</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1455212.31373078</id>
	<title>Good for the USPTO</title>
	<author>Waffle Iron</author>
	<datestamp>1267814760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As long as the USPTO is out there rubber stamping claims, then it's best that their rubber stamp is as inefficient as possible.</p><p>The number of patents issued is already far too large and needs to be reduced by an order of magnitude from today's levels. In the absence of truly reforming the patent-industrial-complex to protect only truly exceptional innovations, government waste is better than nothing.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As long as the USPTO is out there rubber stamping claims , then it 's best that their rubber stamp is as inefficient as possible.The number of patents issued is already far too large and needs to be reduced by an order of magnitude from today 's levels .
In the absence of truly reforming the patent-industrial-complex to protect only truly exceptional innovations , government waste is better than nothing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As long as the USPTO is out there rubber stamping claims, then it's best that their rubber stamp is as inefficient as possible.The number of patents issued is already far too large and needs to be reduced by an order of magnitude from today's levels.
In the absence of truly reforming the patent-industrial-complex to protect only truly exceptional innovations, government waste is better than nothing.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1455212.31373442</id>
	<title>I didn't know...</title>
	<author>JustinFreid</author>
	<datestamp>1267816380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...Terry Gilliam directed the USPTO.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...Terry Gilliam directed the USPTO .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...Terry Gilliam directed the USPTO.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1455212.31375834</id>
	<title>Re:You know, I've dealt with this kind of problem.</title>
	<author>CrazedSanity</author>
	<datestamp>1267784880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That is truly a cool story, and a great example of how inefficiencies get into the system.</p><p>As an IT contractor, I've been accosted on a daily basis by the idea that I should only give the customer what they want, and nothing more, or the idea that it is totally awesome when a project takes longer than expected or simply never ends.  Most of the time it isn't thrown out that bluntly, but the end result is the same, and the basis for it is the need for security.  It encourages concentrating only on the little pieces and not taking the big picture into consideration, to create a security blanket at the price of real innovation.</p><p>"Hey, Jon.  I wanted to show you this sweet software that could make Nancy's office way more efficient.  No more paper-pushing!"</p><p>When the word "change" is thrown around in places where papers are routinely pushed and no electronic part is involved, people get scared and start thinking things like, "they're going to replace me with a computer."  The people doing the change aren't scared because their JOB is to do the change; the people affected by it are scared because nobody tells them what is in the change... now everybody starts talking even more.</p><p>"I heard Nancy and her whole office could get replaced by one computer program."</p><p>"I heard Nancy and her whole office are being replaced by one computer."</p><p>"I heard Nancy and her whole crew got replaced by computers."</p><p>"I heard Nancy's office was replaced by computers."</p><p>"I heard Nancy was replaced by a robot."</p><p>"Did you hear Nancy's whole building was destroyed by a huge robot?"</p><p>"Holy shit... is that Arnold?"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That is truly a cool story , and a great example of how inefficiencies get into the system.As an IT contractor , I 've been accosted on a daily basis by the idea that I should only give the customer what they want , and nothing more , or the idea that it is totally awesome when a project takes longer than expected or simply never ends .
Most of the time it is n't thrown out that bluntly , but the end result is the same , and the basis for it is the need for security .
It encourages concentrating only on the little pieces and not taking the big picture into consideration , to create a security blanket at the price of real innovation .
" Hey , Jon .
I wanted to show you this sweet software that could make Nancy 's office way more efficient .
No more paper-pushing !
" When the word " change " is thrown around in places where papers are routinely pushed and no electronic part is involved , people get scared and start thinking things like , " they 're going to replace me with a computer .
" The people doing the change are n't scared because their JOB is to do the change ; the people affected by it are scared because nobody tells them what is in the change... now everybody starts talking even more .
" I heard Nancy and her whole office could get replaced by one computer program .
" " I heard Nancy and her whole office are being replaced by one computer .
" " I heard Nancy and her whole crew got replaced by computers .
" " I heard Nancy 's office was replaced by computers .
" " I heard Nancy was replaced by a robot .
" " Did you hear Nancy 's whole building was destroyed by a huge robot ?
" " Holy shit... is that Arnold ?
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That is truly a cool story, and a great example of how inefficiencies get into the system.As an IT contractor, I've been accosted on a daily basis by the idea that I should only give the customer what they want, and nothing more, or the idea that it is totally awesome when a project takes longer than expected or simply never ends.
Most of the time it isn't thrown out that bluntly, but the end result is the same, and the basis for it is the need for security.
It encourages concentrating only on the little pieces and not taking the big picture into consideration, to create a security blanket at the price of real innovation.
"Hey, Jon.
I wanted to show you this sweet software that could make Nancy's office way more efficient.
No more paper-pushing!
"When the word "change" is thrown around in places where papers are routinely pushed and no electronic part is involved, people get scared and start thinking things like, "they're going to replace me with a computer.
"  The people doing the change aren't scared because their JOB is to do the change; the people affected by it are scared because nobody tells them what is in the change... now everybody starts talking even more.
"I heard Nancy and her whole office could get replaced by one computer program.
""I heard Nancy and her whole office are being replaced by one computer.
""I heard Nancy and her whole crew got replaced by computers.
""I heard Nancy's office was replaced by computers.
""I heard Nancy was replaced by a robot.
""Did you hear Nancy's whole building was destroyed by a huge robot?
""Holy shit... is that Arnold?
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1455212.31373202</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1455212.31374188</id>
	<title>Re:Possibly another reason</title>
	<author>zildgulf</author>
	<datestamp>1267819740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>In other countries, a government job is something you go to college for, and are trained for. It is something prestigious, and requires (often difficult) exams. I am not saying we should do this in the US, but I think we should be aware that there are alternatives, so we can choose which one we want.</i> <br> <br>
If we are going to have better services in processing patents, mail, social security, medicare, and the like, we will have to start adopting this kind of plan.  Make a degree in government administration or an equal level test be the minimal requirements and make the testing open to all citizens in good standing.</htmltext>
<tokenext>In other countries , a government job is something you go to college for , and are trained for .
It is something prestigious , and requires ( often difficult ) exams .
I am not saying we should do this in the US , but I think we should be aware that there are alternatives , so we can choose which one we want .
If we are going to have better services in processing patents , mail , social security , medicare , and the like , we will have to start adopting this kind of plan .
Make a degree in government administration or an equal level test be the minimal requirements and make the testing open to all citizens in good standing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In other countries, a government job is something you go to college for, and are trained for.
It is something prestigious, and requires (often difficult) exams.
I am not saying we should do this in the US, but I think we should be aware that there are alternatives, so we can choose which one we want.
If we are going to have better services in processing patents, mail, social security, medicare, and the like, we will have to start adopting this kind of plan.
Make a degree in government administration or an equal level test be the minimal requirements and make the testing open to all citizens in good standing.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1455212.31373170</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1455212.31376094</id>
	<title>Re:Healthcare</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267786440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>So if the government sucks at this, we should abolish the FDA? Because, you know, government can't get anything right.</htmltext>
<tokenext>So if the government sucks at this , we should abolish the FDA ?
Because , you know , government ca n't get anything right .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So if the government sucks at this, we should abolish the FDA?
Because, you know, government can't get anything right.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1455212.31372896</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1455212.31374164</id>
	<title>Re:Healthcare</title>
	<author>edmicman</author>
	<datestamp>1267819680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>But usually your provider choice is limited to what your employer provides, right?  Sure, you can get it on your own, but that's not gonna be close the competitively priced, either.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>But usually your provider choice is limited to what your employer provides , right ?
Sure , you can get it on your own , but that 's not gon na be close the competitively priced , either .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But usually your provider choice is limited to what your employer provides, right?
Sure, you can get it on your own, but that's not gonna be close the competitively priced, either.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1455212.31373296</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1455212.31373436</id>
	<title>A true tale of "Thatcherite" bureaucratic thinking</title>
	<author>presidenteloco</author>
	<datestamp>1267816380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I was commissioned to contribute to a large information system development proposal to a government that shall remain nameless.</p><p>The first draft of the proposal I submitted had selling points like:</p><p>"If you let us build this information bridging system (essentially a data warehouse and workflow system), you will be able to process these applications many times faster, and with better information available to the application reviewers in different departments,<br>so that better decisions can be made."</p><p>This, was a non-starter.<br>In a meeting with the government representatives, I actually heard them say: "We don't want to be able to process applications faster. That would reduce our staff requirements and our departmental budget."</p><p>So we came back with a proposal that said:<br>"We'll build this system so you can package up the government data you have from various departments, and sell it<br>to corporations and the public. (Re-sell it back to the owners, more accurately, since the data was public property already paid for by taxpayers). This way, your departments can make a revenue stream, maybe even a profit."</p><p>Wow, think of the brownie points we'd get for that from our political overlords! They thought.</p><p>And we got the multi-million dollar contract.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I was commissioned to contribute to a large information system development proposal to a government that shall remain nameless.The first draft of the proposal I submitted had selling points like : " If you let us build this information bridging system ( essentially a data warehouse and workflow system ) , you will be able to process these applications many times faster , and with better information available to the application reviewers in different departments,so that better decisions can be made .
" This , was a non-starter.In a meeting with the government representatives , I actually heard them say : " We do n't want to be able to process applications faster .
That would reduce our staff requirements and our departmental budget .
" So we came back with a proposal that said : " We 'll build this system so you can package up the government data you have from various departments , and sell itto corporations and the public .
( Re-sell it back to the owners , more accurately , since the data was public property already paid for by taxpayers ) .
This way , your departments can make a revenue stream , maybe even a profit .
" Wow , think of the brownie points we 'd get for that from our political overlords !
They thought.And we got the multi-million dollar contract .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I was commissioned to contribute to a large information system development proposal to a government that shall remain nameless.The first draft of the proposal I submitted had selling points like:"If you let us build this information bridging system (essentially a data warehouse and workflow system), you will be able to process these applications many times faster, and with better information available to the application reviewers in different departments,so that better decisions can be made.
"This, was a non-starter.In a meeting with the government representatives, I actually heard them say: "We don't want to be able to process applications faster.
That would reduce our staff requirements and our departmental budget.
"So we came back with a proposal that said:"We'll build this system so you can package up the government data you have from various departments, and sell itto corporations and the public.
(Re-sell it back to the owners, more accurately, since the data was public property already paid for by taxpayers).
This way, your departments can make a revenue stream, maybe even a profit.
"Wow, think of the brownie points we'd get for that from our political overlords!
They thought.And we got the multi-million dollar contract.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1455212.31373396</id>
	<title>Re:Healthcare</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267816200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>WTF are you talking about?</p><p>I live in a country with national health care and national ID cards. Things aren't perfect and bureaucracy is the same as everywhere, but my government isn't controlling what I can eat, drink, smoke, and other physical or mental activities you enjoy doing. Heck! Even BDSM is legal here! P2P is legal too.</p><p>Regarding the case of ID cards, I find it funny that in countries like the US and the UK --with no national ID card-- their citizens are asked to produce some form of ID even more times than citizens in countries with national ID cards. So, yeah, you don't have national ID cards, but you must present some kind of card zillions of times.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>WTF are you talking about ? I live in a country with national health care and national ID cards .
Things are n't perfect and bureaucracy is the same as everywhere , but my government is n't controlling what I can eat , drink , smoke , and other physical or mental activities you enjoy doing .
Heck ! Even BDSM is legal here !
P2P is legal too.Regarding the case of ID cards , I find it funny that in countries like the US and the UK --with no national ID card-- their citizens are asked to produce some form of ID even more times than citizens in countries with national ID cards .
So , yeah , you do n't have national ID cards , but you must present some kind of card zillions of times .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>WTF are you talking about?I live in a country with national health care and national ID cards.
Things aren't perfect and bureaucracy is the same as everywhere, but my government isn't controlling what I can eat, drink, smoke, and other physical or mental activities you enjoy doing.
Heck! Even BDSM is legal here!
P2P is legal too.Regarding the case of ID cards, I find it funny that in countries like the US and the UK --with no national ID card-- their citizens are asked to produce some form of ID even more times than citizens in countries with national ID cards.
So, yeah, you don't have national ID cards, but you must present some kind of card zillions of times.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1455212.31373118</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1455212.31374018</id>
	<title>Re:Healthcare</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267819080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Healthcare has no market.</p><p>When the product is a NEED rather than a WANT, the whole tone of business is changed.  Health insurance knows you NEED them, so they really don't give a fuck about you and know your dollars will flow in their direction no matter what you think about them.</p><p>People opposed to single-payer are ignorant and/or complete liars; people who think health insurance 'markets' are competitive are simply blind to reality and echoing irrational rhetoric.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Healthcare has no market.When the product is a NEED rather than a WANT , the whole tone of business is changed .
Health insurance knows you NEED them , so they really do n't give a fuck about you and know your dollars will flow in their direction no matter what you think about them.People opposed to single-payer are ignorant and/or complete liars ; people who think health insurance 'markets ' are competitive are simply blind to reality and echoing irrational rhetoric .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Healthcare has no market.When the product is a NEED rather than a WANT, the whole tone of business is changed.
Health insurance knows you NEED them, so they really don't give a fuck about you and know your dollars will flow in their direction no matter what you think about them.People opposed to single-payer are ignorant and/or complete liars; people who think health insurance 'markets' are competitive are simply blind to reality and echoing irrational rhetoric.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1455212.31373142</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1455212.31375620</id>
	<title>IT Should Replace the Bureaucratic Workforce</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267783800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's so easy to think that an entire bureaucracy can be replaced by a well-written database application.  Theoretically, of course, this is true.  Huge amounts of money can be saved by replacing bureaucratic workforces with IT.  The nature of bureaucracy is based in logic, so a direct mapping between a government agency's rules and regulations and a computer program <strong>SHOULD</strong> be easy and direct.</p><p>Unfortunately, authenticity of computerized records becomes a real problem.  Many forms and other paperwork carry legal weight.  The bureaucracies require signatures and even notarization sometimes to prove the authenticity of the bureaucratic stimulus.  This proves the effort used to prepare the government's response is legitimate, and to protect against fraud.  Therefore, as part of the transition, all such paperwork carrying legal weight will have to be scanned, added to the database as both data records and scan images, and proof read for accuracy.  This presents a huge amount of work, especially at the federal level where some government agencies are responsible for storing hundreds of forms for each of the hundreds of millions of citizens in this country.  The sheer volume of this work makes the transition to IT impossible.</p><p>The biggest problem here is that authentication of electronic records still isn't solved.  A look at previous slashdot stories about electronic voting machines will get you up to speed with this issue.  People won't trust electronic records if its possible for bad people in the government to monkey around with their filings and benefits.</p><p>Another serious problem involves conflicting bureaucratic rules and regulations, most of which were written by politicians reacting to headline-grabbing situations.  If these rules were programmed into the database application, the bureaucratic process would grind to a halt.  The computer would flag nearly all the records in the database because of conflicting logic in the rules.  Poorly written rules and regulations will create a massive failure state that will make the IT version of a government agency seem like a failure from the beginning.  For political reasons, an IT version of a government agency will be placed in jeapardy before the project can get off the ground.  Of course, the IT department will <strong>NEVER</strong> have the authority to solve these problems.  All we can do is point out the conflicts, propose meaningful changes, and wait for the politicians who may never make a decision.</p><p>Even if the logical kinks were magically ironed out of the system, there will always be logical conflicts that come up.  What about the soldier who was injured while on active duty, and the injury to his neck did permanent damage to his nervous system?  He is vulnerable to bouts of pain so severe that he will collapse to the ground and become a complete invalid for the rest of the day until he recovers.  He was declared permanently disabled by his civilian doctor, but declared able-bodied by the military doctor.  Because of this, both the military and the social security department have denied him disability benefits, he's been separated from the military (honorably), and can't get a job because he can't guarantee that he can finish a shift.  The question is, how will the IT version of the bureaucracy handle conflicting inputs (in this case from the doctors) when trying to determine this man's current condition and status?</p><p>Bureaucracies by their nature are always trying to categorize people and things and apply rules to these groups.  Unfortunately, there are many occasions when a person or thing doesn't fit into an available category, and other occasions where some people are given special treatment for one reason or another, and this helps create some of the logical conflicts mentioned above.  An IT application designed to follow the rules of the bureaucracy won't have the wisdom, the intelligence, or the authorization to create new categories to pigeon-hole these statistical outliers, or to show some flexibility and willingne</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's so easy to think that an entire bureaucracy can be replaced by a well-written database application .
Theoretically , of course , this is true .
Huge amounts of money can be saved by replacing bureaucratic workforces with IT .
The nature of bureaucracy is based in logic , so a direct mapping between a government agency 's rules and regulations and a computer program SHOULD be easy and direct.Unfortunately , authenticity of computerized records becomes a real problem .
Many forms and other paperwork carry legal weight .
The bureaucracies require signatures and even notarization sometimes to prove the authenticity of the bureaucratic stimulus .
This proves the effort used to prepare the government 's response is legitimate , and to protect against fraud .
Therefore , as part of the transition , all such paperwork carrying legal weight will have to be scanned , added to the database as both data records and scan images , and proof read for accuracy .
This presents a huge amount of work , especially at the federal level where some government agencies are responsible for storing hundreds of forms for each of the hundreds of millions of citizens in this country .
The sheer volume of this work makes the transition to IT impossible.The biggest problem here is that authentication of electronic records still is n't solved .
A look at previous slashdot stories about electronic voting machines will get you up to speed with this issue .
People wo n't trust electronic records if its possible for bad people in the government to monkey around with their filings and benefits.Another serious problem involves conflicting bureaucratic rules and regulations , most of which were written by politicians reacting to headline-grabbing situations .
If these rules were programmed into the database application , the bureaucratic process would grind to a halt .
The computer would flag nearly all the records in the database because of conflicting logic in the rules .
Poorly written rules and regulations will create a massive failure state that will make the IT version of a government agency seem like a failure from the beginning .
For political reasons , an IT version of a government agency will be placed in jeapardy before the project can get off the ground .
Of course , the IT department will NEVER have the authority to solve these problems .
All we can do is point out the conflicts , propose meaningful changes , and wait for the politicians who may never make a decision.Even if the logical kinks were magically ironed out of the system , there will always be logical conflicts that come up .
What about the soldier who was injured while on active duty , and the injury to his neck did permanent damage to his nervous system ?
He is vulnerable to bouts of pain so severe that he will collapse to the ground and become a complete invalid for the rest of the day until he recovers .
He was declared permanently disabled by his civilian doctor , but declared able-bodied by the military doctor .
Because of this , both the military and the social security department have denied him disability benefits , he 's been separated from the military ( honorably ) , and ca n't get a job because he ca n't guarantee that he can finish a shift .
The question is , how will the IT version of the bureaucracy handle conflicting inputs ( in this case from the doctors ) when trying to determine this man 's current condition and status ? Bureaucracies by their nature are always trying to categorize people and things and apply rules to these groups .
Unfortunately , there are many occasions when a person or thing does n't fit into an available category , and other occasions where some people are given special treatment for one reason or another , and this helps create some of the logical conflicts mentioned above .
An IT application designed to follow the rules of the bureaucracy wo n't have the wisdom , the intelligence , or the authorization to create new categories to pigeon-hole these statistical outliers , or to show some flexibility and willingne</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's so easy to think that an entire bureaucracy can be replaced by a well-written database application.
Theoretically, of course, this is true.
Huge amounts of money can be saved by replacing bureaucratic workforces with IT.
The nature of bureaucracy is based in logic, so a direct mapping between a government agency's rules and regulations and a computer program SHOULD be easy and direct.Unfortunately, authenticity of computerized records becomes a real problem.
Many forms and other paperwork carry legal weight.
The bureaucracies require signatures and even notarization sometimes to prove the authenticity of the bureaucratic stimulus.
This proves the effort used to prepare the government's response is legitimate, and to protect against fraud.
Therefore, as part of the transition, all such paperwork carrying legal weight will have to be scanned, added to the database as both data records and scan images, and proof read for accuracy.
This presents a huge amount of work, especially at the federal level where some government agencies are responsible for storing hundreds of forms for each of the hundreds of millions of citizens in this country.
The sheer volume of this work makes the transition to IT impossible.The biggest problem here is that authentication of electronic records still isn't solved.
A look at previous slashdot stories about electronic voting machines will get you up to speed with this issue.
People won't trust electronic records if its possible for bad people in the government to monkey around with their filings and benefits.Another serious problem involves conflicting bureaucratic rules and regulations, most of which were written by politicians reacting to headline-grabbing situations.
If these rules were programmed into the database application, the bureaucratic process would grind to a halt.
The computer would flag nearly all the records in the database because of conflicting logic in the rules.
Poorly written rules and regulations will create a massive failure state that will make the IT version of a government agency seem like a failure from the beginning.
For political reasons, an IT version of a government agency will be placed in jeapardy before the project can get off the ground.
Of course, the IT department will NEVER have the authority to solve these problems.
All we can do is point out the conflicts, propose meaningful changes, and wait for the politicians who may never make a decision.Even if the logical kinks were magically ironed out of the system, there will always be logical conflicts that come up.
What about the soldier who was injured while on active duty, and the injury to his neck did permanent damage to his nervous system?
He is vulnerable to bouts of pain so severe that he will collapse to the ground and become a complete invalid for the rest of the day until he recovers.
He was declared permanently disabled by his civilian doctor, but declared able-bodied by the military doctor.
Because of this, both the military and the social security department have denied him disability benefits, he's been separated from the military (honorably), and can't get a job because he can't guarantee that he can finish a shift.
The question is, how will the IT version of the bureaucracy handle conflicting inputs (in this case from the doctors) when trying to determine this man's current condition and status?Bureaucracies by their nature are always trying to categorize people and things and apply rules to these groups.
Unfortunately, there are many occasions when a person or thing doesn't fit into an available category, and other occasions where some people are given special treatment for one reason or another, and this helps create some of the logical conflicts mentioned above.
An IT application designed to follow the rules of the bureaucracy won't have the wisdom, the intelligence, or the authorization to create new categories to pigeon-hole these statistical outliers, or to show some flexibility and willingne</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1455212.31373372</id>
	<title>Vivek Claim Staking!!!</title>
	<author>mpapet</author>
	<datestamp>1267816080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>1. I hardly doubt this guy just fired off this screed on his own.<br>2. So, Vivek, how much would a new Patent Administration cost?  How long would it take?  You wouldn't have your job long enough to see the project complete, successfully or otherwise.<br>3. How about that VA system huh?  Let's stake your entire career on changing it.  Ohhh now that YOUR skin is in the game, suddenly the status-quo looks pretty good.</p><p>For every system that can be selectively discredited, there are 10 or more that are cost effective and relatively efficient with competent government employees in them.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>1 .
I hardly doubt this guy just fired off this screed on his own.2 .
So , Vivek , how much would a new Patent Administration cost ?
How long would it take ?
You would n't have your job long enough to see the project complete , successfully or otherwise.3 .
How about that VA system huh ?
Let 's stake your entire career on changing it .
Ohhh now that YOUR skin is in the game , suddenly the status-quo looks pretty good.For every system that can be selectively discredited , there are 10 or more that are cost effective and relatively efficient with competent government employees in them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>1.
I hardly doubt this guy just fired off this screed on his own.2.
So, Vivek, how much would a new Patent Administration cost?
How long would it take?
You wouldn't have your job long enough to see the project complete, successfully or otherwise.3.
How about that VA system huh?
Let's stake your entire career on changing it.
Ohhh now that YOUR skin is in the game, suddenly the status-quo looks pretty good.For every system that can be selectively discredited, there are 10 or more that are cost effective and relatively efficient with competent government employees in them.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1455212.31376132</id>
	<title>Re:You know, I've dealt with this kind of problem.</title>
	<author>CodeBuster</author>
	<datestamp>1267786620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The parent has made the most lucid, well though out and insightful distillation of effective project management that I have ever heard here on Slashdot. The problem, as the parent so eloquently puts it, is leadership or rather lack thereof in many organizations.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The parent has made the most lucid , well though out and insightful distillation of effective project management that I have ever heard here on Slashdot .
The problem , as the parent so eloquently puts it , is leadership or rather lack thereof in many organizations .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The parent has made the most lucid, well though out and insightful distillation of effective project management that I have ever heard here on Slashdot.
The problem, as the parent so eloquently puts it, is leadership or rather lack thereof in many organizations.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1455212.31373202</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1455212.31372998</id>
	<title>Re:Possibly another reason</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267814400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Is because there's no consequence for them doing a bad job, so they can take their own sweet time. You have to screw up pretty badly to get fired by the Federal government.</p></div><p>Sadly, the same is pretty true in corporate America. Heck, my father used to get excel files on floppy disks mailed to him every month in manilla envelope, because no one could configure their corporate e-mail system to allow larger file sizes and most managers didn't know how to attach files (this was in 2002).</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Is because there 's no consequence for them doing a bad job , so they can take their own sweet time .
You have to screw up pretty badly to get fired by the Federal government.Sadly , the same is pretty true in corporate America .
Heck , my father used to get excel files on floppy disks mailed to him every month in manilla envelope , because no one could configure their corporate e-mail system to allow larger file sizes and most managers did n't know how to attach files ( this was in 2002 ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is because there's no consequence for them doing a bad job, so they can take their own sweet time.
You have to screw up pretty badly to get fired by the Federal government.Sadly, the same is pretty true in corporate America.
Heck, my father used to get excel files on floppy disks mailed to him every month in manilla envelope, because no one could configure their corporate e-mail system to allow larger file sizes and most managers didn't know how to attach files (this was in 2002).
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1455212.31372838</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1455212.31374336</id>
	<title>Re:Healthcare</title>
	<author>tsotha</author>
	<datestamp>1267820280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Obviously you've never dealt with the VA.  Imagine your experience with private health care and then imagine a similar system run by people who can't be fired.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Obviously you 've never dealt with the VA. Imagine your experience with private health care and then imagine a similar system run by people who ca n't be fired .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Obviously you've never dealt with the VA.  Imagine your experience with private health care and then imagine a similar system run by people who can't be fired.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1455212.31373116</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1455212.31373506</id>
	<title>Re:Healthcare</title>
	<author>Archangel Michael</author>
	<datestamp>1267816680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>actually have motivation to make simple task harder</i></p><p>This is only because of how Health Insurance is currently structured. If we had high deductible insurance that didn't cover any maintenance, but only covered rare and emergency situations, then we'd have much lower overall costs.</p><p>Insurance is a middle man that not only adds costs to the system, but skims money off the top of everything to boot. This doesn't make insurance companies evil, it just makes them less efficient.</p><p>Want to make the system less susceptible to fraud and abuse? Bring the costs closer to the person who is ultimately paying the bills, the health care consumer.</p><p>And now, the anecdotal case scenarios will be brought forward about how Grandma is eating dog food, and Tiny Tim needing help for his legs.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>actually have motivation to make simple task harderThis is only because of how Health Insurance is currently structured .
If we had high deductible insurance that did n't cover any maintenance , but only covered rare and emergency situations , then we 'd have much lower overall costs.Insurance is a middle man that not only adds costs to the system , but skims money off the top of everything to boot .
This does n't make insurance companies evil , it just makes them less efficient.Want to make the system less susceptible to fraud and abuse ?
Bring the costs closer to the person who is ultimately paying the bills , the health care consumer.And now , the anecdotal case scenarios will be brought forward about how Grandma is eating dog food , and Tiny Tim needing help for his legs .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>actually have motivation to make simple task harderThis is only because of how Health Insurance is currently structured.
If we had high deductible insurance that didn't cover any maintenance, but only covered rare and emergency situations, then we'd have much lower overall costs.Insurance is a middle man that not only adds costs to the system, but skims money off the top of everything to boot.
This doesn't make insurance companies evil, it just makes them less efficient.Want to make the system less susceptible to fraud and abuse?
Bring the costs closer to the person who is ultimately paying the bills, the health care consumer.And now, the anecdotal case scenarios will be brought forward about how Grandma is eating dog food, and Tiny Tim needing help for his legs.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1455212.31373116</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1455212.31372906</id>
	<title>Got ebcdic?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267813980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>'One reason,' says Kundra, 'is because the USPTO receives these applications online, prints them out, and then someone manually rekeys the information into an antiquated system.'"

I wonder if they're using EBCDIC</htmltext>
<tokenext>'One reason, ' says Kundra , 'is because the USPTO receives these applications online , prints them out , and then someone manually rekeys the information into an antiquated system .
' " I wonder if they 're using EBCDIC</tokentext>
<sentencetext>'One reason,' says Kundra, 'is because the USPTO receives these applications online, prints them out, and then someone manually rekeys the information into an antiquated system.
'"

I wonder if they're using EBCDIC</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1455212.31373104</id>
	<title>How many days does it take to move a folder?</title>
	<author>KumquatOfSolace</author>
	<datestamp>1267814880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Are they using some kind of giant land-snails as intra-office couriers?
<br> <br>
Seriously, the delay must be due to the time the folders spend sitting untouched in a filing cabinet or on someone's desk, not in transit.  They could just as easily store digital information, unprocessed, on a server or desktop computer for the same amount of time.
<br> <br>
Most likely they will blame all problems on lack of computerization, then spend $100 million on a new computer system (which will be obsolete by the time it is complete) and 10 years later the real problems still won't be fixed.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Are they using some kind of giant land-snails as intra-office couriers ?
Seriously , the delay must be due to the time the folders spend sitting untouched in a filing cabinet or on someone 's desk , not in transit .
They could just as easily store digital information , unprocessed , on a server or desktop computer for the same amount of time .
Most likely they will blame all problems on lack of computerization , then spend $ 100 million on a new computer system ( which will be obsolete by the time it is complete ) and 10 years later the real problems still wo n't be fixed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Are they using some kind of giant land-snails as intra-office couriers?
Seriously, the delay must be due to the time the folders spend sitting untouched in a filing cabinet or on someone's desk, not in transit.
They could just as easily store digital information, unprocessed, on a server or desktop computer for the same amount of time.
Most likely they will blame all problems on lack of computerization, then spend $100 million on a new computer system (which will be obsolete by the time it is complete) and 10 years later the real problems still won't be fixed.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1455212.31374512</id>
	<title>Re:Healthcare</title>
	<author>Mindcontrolled</author>
	<datestamp>1267821300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Regarding the case of ID cards, I find it funny that in countries like the US and the UK --with no national ID card-- their citizens are asked to produce some form of ID even more times than citizens in countries with national ID cards. So, yeah, you don't have national ID cards, but you must present some kind of card zillions of times.</p></div><p>Indeed - around here, I had to present ID two times last year - and that was when I entered a secure research and development facility of a private business for a meeting. While I was living in the US, I had to ID myself for buying beer. At the age of 35, with a RMS-worthy beard. *Cough*</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Regarding the case of ID cards , I find it funny that in countries like the US and the UK --with no national ID card-- their citizens are asked to produce some form of ID even more times than citizens in countries with national ID cards .
So , yeah , you do n't have national ID cards , but you must present some kind of card zillions of times.Indeed - around here , I had to present ID two times last year - and that was when I entered a secure research and development facility of a private business for a meeting .
While I was living in the US , I had to ID myself for buying beer .
At the age of 35 , with a RMS-worthy beard .
* Cough *</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Regarding the case of ID cards, I find it funny that in countries like the US and the UK --with no national ID card-- their citizens are asked to produce some form of ID even more times than citizens in countries with national ID cards.
So, yeah, you don't have national ID cards, but you must present some kind of card zillions of times.Indeed - around here, I had to present ID two times last year - and that was when I entered a secure research and development facility of a private business for a meeting.
While I was living in the US, I had to ID myself for buying beer.
At the age of 35, with a RMS-worthy beard.
*Cough*
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1455212.31373396</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1455212.31373118</id>
	<title>Re:Healthcare</title>
	<author>DigiShaman</author>
	<datestamp>1267814940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And I'll add "By bureaucrats who don't know what the hell their doing, or plan on getting kick-backs in return for passing it"</p><p>Obama expects - no - <i>plans</i> to fall on the sword for this bill. He will sacrifice democracy and his party just to solidify power for the Federal Gov. Once they control health care, they also control all aspects of our lives that would cost the tax payer extra.</p><p>National Health Care = forfeiting of personal freedoms such as what you can eat, drink, smoke, and other physical or mental activities you enjoy doing.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And I 'll add " By bureaucrats who do n't know what the hell their doing , or plan on getting kick-backs in return for passing it " Obama expects - no - plans to fall on the sword for this bill .
He will sacrifice democracy and his party just to solidify power for the Federal Gov .
Once they control health care , they also control all aspects of our lives that would cost the tax payer extra.National Health Care = forfeiting of personal freedoms such as what you can eat , drink , smoke , and other physical or mental activities you enjoy doing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And I'll add "By bureaucrats who don't know what the hell their doing, or plan on getting kick-backs in return for passing it"Obama expects - no - plans to fall on the sword for this bill.
He will sacrifice democracy and his party just to solidify power for the Federal Gov.
Once they control health care, they also control all aspects of our lives that would cost the tax payer extra.National Health Care = forfeiting of personal freedoms such as what you can eat, drink, smoke, and other physical or mental activities you enjoy doing.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1455212.31372896</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1455212.31373240</id>
	<title>The common variable</title>
	<author>lsmo</author>
	<datestamp>1267815480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>This is not a problem of gov't.  This happens in all forms of commerce public or private sector.  The common factor is the HUMAN in the loop.  Let me clarify that it is not all humans but there are those among us that side step all responsibility and accountability.  They look for positions of protection and abuse them.  Just look at the abuse of tenure in the school systems.  Sorry to say it but the problem can not be solved unless we change our culture.


I see this everyday but since I don't have any social connections to management I am pretty much powerless to act.  If I do act it would be me on the way out the door.  Sad but very true.

Just my 2</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is not a problem of gov't .
This happens in all forms of commerce public or private sector .
The common factor is the HUMAN in the loop .
Let me clarify that it is not all humans but there are those among us that side step all responsibility and accountability .
They look for positions of protection and abuse them .
Just look at the abuse of tenure in the school systems .
Sorry to say it but the problem can not be solved unless we change our culture .
I see this everyday but since I do n't have any social connections to management I am pretty much powerless to act .
If I do act it would be me on the way out the door .
Sad but very true .
Just my 2</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is not a problem of gov't.
This happens in all forms of commerce public or private sector.
The common factor is the HUMAN in the loop.
Let me clarify that it is not all humans but there are those among us that side step all responsibility and accountability.
They look for positions of protection and abuse them.
Just look at the abuse of tenure in the school systems.
Sorry to say it but the problem can not be solved unless we change our culture.
I see this everyday but since I don't have any social connections to management I am pretty much powerless to act.
If I do act it would be me on the way out the door.
Sad but very true.
Just my 2</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1455212.31374326</id>
	<title>Re:You know, I've dealt with this kind of problem.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267820220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That's very accurate.  Leadership, and good management, is often \_very\_ lacking in the public sector.  The public sector is also very risk averse.  People get fired for project failures (for reasons generally outside of their control) but not for failing to improve efficiency.  The result is those leaders who do dare take on a project be very careful stepping through the minefield.  To make matters worse, public sector projects tend to have massive issues with scope creep, again due to the failure of leadership.  Combine all of that together, and you get an environment where it's almost impossible to make those sorts of changes.</p><p>While it's easy to blame unions, or lazy workers, in my experience, that's not the real issue.</p><p>The real issue is that very rarely do elections turn on issues of efficiency.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's very accurate .
Leadership , and good management , is often \ _very \ _ lacking in the public sector .
The public sector is also very risk averse .
People get fired for project failures ( for reasons generally outside of their control ) but not for failing to improve efficiency .
The result is those leaders who do dare take on a project be very careful stepping through the minefield .
To make matters worse , public sector projects tend to have massive issues with scope creep , again due to the failure of leadership .
Combine all of that together , and you get an environment where it 's almost impossible to make those sorts of changes.While it 's easy to blame unions , or lazy workers , in my experience , that 's not the real issue.The real issue is that very rarely do elections turn on issues of efficiency .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's very accurate.
Leadership, and good management, is often \_very\_ lacking in the public sector.
The public sector is also very risk averse.
People get fired for project failures (for reasons generally outside of their control) but not for failing to improve efficiency.
The result is those leaders who do dare take on a project be very careful stepping through the minefield.
To make matters worse, public sector projects tend to have massive issues with scope creep, again due to the failure of leadership.
Combine all of that together, and you get an environment where it's almost impossible to make those sorts of changes.While it's easy to blame unions, or lazy workers, in my experience, that's not the real issue.The real issue is that very rarely do elections turn on issues of efficiency.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1455212.31373202</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1455212.31373076</id>
	<title>Better reason is that Govt Jobs are a job program</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267814760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Government jobs, Federal, State and Local are almost treated like a jobs program.  Everyone has heard the noise when tax receipts (I refuse to call it revenue) fall short and people have to be let go.  The stimulus plan was the Federal government borrowing money to save the jobs of State and Local employees.  In my town alone Police, Fire, Teachers and Construction have been hired with two years of stimulus funds.  When the money runs out in a year, do we get a new Federal stimulus?

The Feds don't have to be efficient, because they have no competition, and if you put 25\% of government workers out, unemployment goes up another 5\%.  There is no reason to do things better if it reduces the number of workers.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Government jobs , Federal , State and Local are almost treated like a jobs program .
Everyone has heard the noise when tax receipts ( I refuse to call it revenue ) fall short and people have to be let go .
The stimulus plan was the Federal government borrowing money to save the jobs of State and Local employees .
In my town alone Police , Fire , Teachers and Construction have been hired with two years of stimulus funds .
When the money runs out in a year , do we get a new Federal stimulus ?
The Feds do n't have to be efficient , because they have no competition , and if you put 25 \ % of government workers out , unemployment goes up another 5 \ % .
There is no reason to do things better if it reduces the number of workers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Government jobs, Federal, State and Local are almost treated like a jobs program.
Everyone has heard the noise when tax receipts (I refuse to call it revenue) fall short and people have to be let go.
The stimulus plan was the Federal government borrowing money to save the jobs of State and Local employees.
In my town alone Police, Fire, Teachers and Construction have been hired with two years of stimulus funds.
When the money runs out in a year, do we get a new Federal stimulus?
The Feds don't have to be efficient, because they have no competition, and if you put 25\% of government workers out, unemployment goes up another 5\%.
There is no reason to do things better if it reduces the number of workers.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1455212.31372838</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1455212.31373258</id>
	<title>Re:Healthcare</title>
	<author>X\_Bones</author>
	<datestamp>1267815540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>We're all thinking it, so I'll say it: "Hey, let's let our government handle healthcare to increase effeciency"</i> <br> <br>uh, no.  Some of us are thinking "hey, let's let our government handle healthcare because it's <i>fucking criminal</i> that for-profit entities are allowed to literally and figuratively bleed us dry in order to please their stockholders.  And a big contributor to inadequacies in things like Medicare and the VA system stem from a lack of funds for improvements, either because people are too cheap and shortsighted to raise taxes or they have screwed up financial priorities like funding instead the biggest military on the planet so it can go bomb people overseas."<br> <br>But then again I'm one of those filthy Commies who wants a single-payer healthcare system in the US, so feel free to disregard anything I say.</htmltext>
<tokenext>We 're all thinking it , so I 'll say it : " Hey , let 's let our government handle healthcare to increase effeciency " uh , no .
Some of us are thinking " hey , let 's let our government handle healthcare because it 's fucking criminal that for-profit entities are allowed to literally and figuratively bleed us dry in order to please their stockholders .
And a big contributor to inadequacies in things like Medicare and the VA system stem from a lack of funds for improvements , either because people are too cheap and shortsighted to raise taxes or they have screwed up financial priorities like funding instead the biggest military on the planet so it can go bomb people overseas .
" But then again I 'm one of those filthy Commies who wants a single-payer healthcare system in the US , so feel free to disregard anything I say .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We're all thinking it, so I'll say it: "Hey, let's let our government handle healthcare to increase effeciency"  uh, no.
Some of us are thinking "hey, let's let our government handle healthcare because it's fucking criminal that for-profit entities are allowed to literally and figuratively bleed us dry in order to please their stockholders.
And a big contributor to inadequacies in things like Medicare and the VA system stem from a lack of funds for improvements, either because people are too cheap and shortsighted to raise taxes or they have screwed up financial priorities like funding instead the biggest military on the planet so it can go bomb people overseas.
" But then again I'm one of those filthy Commies who wants a single-payer healthcare system in the US, so feel free to disregard anything I say.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1455212.31372896</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1455212.31376974</id>
	<title>+1 Creepy</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267792140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Until a couple of hours ago, I had never heard nor read this statement.</p><p>Someone used that as an answer to address verification for me. I come here a couple of hours later, and read the same statement.</p><p>If that gets modded anything, it needs +1 Creepy.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Until a couple of hours ago , I had never heard nor read this statement.Someone used that as an answer to address verification for me .
I come here a couple of hours later , and read the same statement.If that gets modded anything , it needs + 1 Creepy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Until a couple of hours ago, I had never heard nor read this statement.Someone used that as an answer to address verification for me.
I come here a couple of hours later, and read the same statement.If that gets modded anything, it needs +1 Creepy.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1455212.31373420</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1455212.31373612</id>
	<title>Re:Healthcare</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267817160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Yes, let's.
<br>
Medicare overhead - ~5.2\%-8\% (depending on whose numbers you use)<br>
Private insurers' overhead - ~16\%-35\% (depending on whose numbers you use)
<br> <br>
So keep your government hands off my Medicare...<br>
Oh. Wait...</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , let 's .
Medicare overhead - ~ 5.2 \ % -8 \ % ( depending on whose numbers you use ) Private insurers ' overhead - ~ 16 \ % -35 \ % ( depending on whose numbers you use ) So keep your government hands off my Medicare.. . Oh. Wait.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, let's.
Medicare overhead - ~5.2\%-8\% (depending on whose numbers you use)
Private insurers' overhead - ~16\%-35\% (depending on whose numbers you use)
 
So keep your government hands off my Medicare...
Oh. Wait...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1455212.31372896</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1455212.31376672</id>
	<title>Re:Government? How about in the private sector?</title>
	<author>arose</author>
	<datestamp>1267790040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>The difference being, my friend, is that if the private sector continues those practices, the people responsible for the practices get let go or they go out of business, and then the only people who pay for it are the shareholders, not the tax payers.</p></div>
</blockquote><p>If that was actually true corporate waste would have been eliminated by now. Corporate waste, however, continues and it's customers who pay for it in the corporations that magically* survive, not shareholders.</p><p>* Or so it would appear to someone who has read up on the benefits of a perfect market and for some ass-backwards reason expects a free or mixed market to work the same way.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The difference being , my friend , is that if the private sector continues those practices , the people responsible for the practices get let go or they go out of business , and then the only people who pay for it are the shareholders , not the tax payers .
If that was actually true corporate waste would have been eliminated by now .
Corporate waste , however , continues and it 's customers who pay for it in the corporations that magically * survive , not shareholders .
* Or so it would appear to someone who has read up on the benefits of a perfect market and for some ass-backwards reason expects a free or mixed market to work the same way .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The difference being, my friend, is that if the private sector continues those practices, the people responsible for the practices get let go or they go out of business, and then the only people who pay for it are the shareholders, not the tax payers.
If that was actually true corporate waste would have been eliminated by now.
Corporate waste, however, continues and it's customers who pay for it in the corporations that magically* survive, not shareholders.
* Or so it would appear to someone who has read up on the benefits of a perfect market and for some ass-backwards reason expects a free or mixed market to work the same way.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1455212.31373786</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1455212.31377184</id>
	<title>Re:Healthcare</title>
	<author>(arg!)Styopa</author>
	<datestamp>1267794060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"...why the hell do you care if they give people the OPTION of choosing a government plan..."</p><p>1) guess who's going to be footing the bill?  Suckers who are stupid enough to work their whole lives, have paying jobs, and pay their taxes. SUCKERS.</p><p>2) because what is OPTIONAL to start, from the government, soon becomes mandatory.  And how fair is it that the private sector has to compete with a taxpayer-funded-and-backed-nonprofit?</p><p>Your choice - pick 1, 2, or 1&amp;2.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" ...why the hell do you care if they give people the OPTION of choosing a government plan... " 1 ) guess who 's going to be footing the bill ?
Suckers who are stupid enough to work their whole lives , have paying jobs , and pay their taxes .
SUCKERS.2 ) because what is OPTIONAL to start , from the government , soon becomes mandatory .
And how fair is it that the private sector has to compete with a taxpayer-funded-and-backed-nonprofit ? Your choice - pick 1 , 2 , or 1&amp;2 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"...why the hell do you care if they give people the OPTION of choosing a government plan..."1) guess who's going to be footing the bill?
Suckers who are stupid enough to work their whole lives, have paying jobs, and pay their taxes.
SUCKERS.2) because what is OPTIONAL to start, from the government, soon becomes mandatory.
And how fair is it that the private sector has to compete with a taxpayer-funded-and-backed-nonprofit?Your choice - pick 1, 2, or 1&amp;2.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1455212.31373242</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1455212.31373296</id>
	<title>Re:Healthcare</title>
	<author>DesScorp</author>
	<datestamp>1267815840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't know what kind of insurance you have, but I think you need to look for a different provider. I have what is probably pretty run-of-the-mill Blue Cross, and I've been through a couple of surgeries, my wife has been through a couple, and we both have prescriptions, as well as two kids that occasionally get hurt and need emergency room visits, etc. And in all those years, I've filled out very little paperwork. The only thing I pay for up front is a co-pay for visits, surgeries, and drugs. The claim filing process is all automated. Blue Cross sends me an email when a claim is processed.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't know what kind of insurance you have , but I think you need to look for a different provider .
I have what is probably pretty run-of-the-mill Blue Cross , and I 've been through a couple of surgeries , my wife has been through a couple , and we both have prescriptions , as well as two kids that occasionally get hurt and need emergency room visits , etc .
And in all those years , I 've filled out very little paperwork .
The only thing I pay for up front is a co-pay for visits , surgeries , and drugs .
The claim filing process is all automated .
Blue Cross sends me an email when a claim is processed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't know what kind of insurance you have, but I think you need to look for a different provider.
I have what is probably pretty run-of-the-mill Blue Cross, and I've been through a couple of surgeries, my wife has been through a couple, and we both have prescriptions, as well as two kids that occasionally get hurt and need emergency room visits, etc.
And in all those years, I've filled out very little paperwork.
The only thing I pay for up front is a co-pay for visits, surgeries, and drugs.
The claim filing process is all automated.
Blue Cross sends me an email when a claim is processed.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1455212.31373116</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1455212.31373174</id>
	<title>Re:Healthcare</title>
	<author>hoshino</author>
	<datestamp>1267815240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What's the use of all the private-insurer "efficiency" if they prefer to use it to screw you over for one more dollar?<br>And I say "efficiency" because health insurance companies in US already have one of the highest overhead costs in the world, so you can hardly called it efficient.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What 's the use of all the private-insurer " efficiency " if they prefer to use it to screw you over for one more dollar ? And I say " efficiency " because health insurance companies in US already have one of the highest overhead costs in the world , so you can hardly called it efficient .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What's the use of all the private-insurer "efficiency" if they prefer to use it to screw you over for one more dollar?And I say "efficiency" because health insurance companies in US already have one of the highest overhead costs in the world, so you can hardly called it efficient.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1455212.31372896</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1455212.31375436</id>
	<title>Re:Possibly another reason</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267782780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>1. They want to continue to increase staffing in their department. By proving that they are "swamped" with work they have more ability to do so. This increases the budget and thus the clout that the particular department has.</p></div><p>This is something that's just as true for private enterprise, so it's no reason for government inefficiency.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>2. The process to upgrade the systems, and fill in all the historical information, would be too difficult on all levels (financial, training, and time) to do. It's easier to continue the antiquated processes.</p></div><p>Usually indicating that someone did the cost portion but not the benefit protion of the cost-benefit analysis. There's a cost to not doing something too, and it's rarely understood or considered.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>3. Unions protect the employees against any kind of common sense options here and thus the status quo is preserved.</p></div><p>Bingo! Plus, by personal experience, unions tend to force everyone's performance to the lowest common denominator. (Hey new guy, slow down! You're making us old timers look bad and we've got more seniority so...)</p><p>Can't argue with 4 and 5...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>1 .
They want to continue to increase staffing in their department .
By proving that they are " swamped " with work they have more ability to do so .
This increases the budget and thus the clout that the particular department has.This is something that 's just as true for private enterprise , so it 's no reason for government inefficiency.2 .
The process to upgrade the systems , and fill in all the historical information , would be too difficult on all levels ( financial , training , and time ) to do .
It 's easier to continue the antiquated processes.Usually indicating that someone did the cost portion but not the benefit protion of the cost-benefit analysis .
There 's a cost to not doing something too , and it 's rarely understood or considered.3 .
Unions protect the employees against any kind of common sense options here and thus the status quo is preserved.Bingo !
Plus , by personal experience , unions tend to force everyone 's performance to the lowest common denominator .
( Hey new guy , slow down !
You 're making us old timers look bad and we 've got more seniority so... ) Ca n't argue with 4 and 5.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>1.
They want to continue to increase staffing in their department.
By proving that they are "swamped" with work they have more ability to do so.
This increases the budget and thus the clout that the particular department has.This is something that's just as true for private enterprise, so it's no reason for government inefficiency.2.
The process to upgrade the systems, and fill in all the historical information, would be too difficult on all levels (financial, training, and time) to do.
It's easier to continue the antiquated processes.Usually indicating that someone did the cost portion but not the benefit protion of the cost-benefit analysis.
There's a cost to not doing something too, and it's rarely understood or considered.3.
Unions protect the employees against any kind of common sense options here and thus the status quo is preserved.Bingo!
Plus, by personal experience, unions tend to force everyone's performance to the lowest common denominator.
(Hey new guy, slow down!
You're making us old timers look bad and we've got more seniority so...)Can't argue with 4 and 5...
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1455212.31373062</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1455212.31373028</id>
	<title>Cue...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267814520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Cue "OMG why don't they just use open source?  It'd be ever so much easier and it's FREE!!!"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Cue " OMG why do n't they just use open source ?
It 'd be ever so much easier and it 's FREE ! ! !
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Cue "OMG why don't they just use open source?
It'd be ever so much easier and it's FREE!!!
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1455212.31373890</id>
	<title>Re:Possibly another reason</title>
	<author>Lunix Nutcase</author>
	<datestamp>1267818360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>It's rather straightforward actually, companies are kept efficient due to the profit/loss mechanism, if a company is horrible inefficient it loses money and this inefficiency is clearly visible through accounting.</p></div><p>That is unless that same company is cooking the books like we've seen plenty of in the last 2+ decades.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's rather straightforward actually , companies are kept efficient due to the profit/loss mechanism , if a company is horrible inefficient it loses money and this inefficiency is clearly visible through accounting.That is unless that same company is cooking the books like we 've seen plenty of in the last 2 + decades .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's rather straightforward actually, companies are kept efficient due to the profit/loss mechanism, if a company is horrible inefficient it loses money and this inefficiency is clearly visible through accounting.That is unless that same company is cooking the books like we've seen plenty of in the last 2+ decades.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1455212.31373148</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1455212.31372838</id>
	<title>Possibly another reason</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267813620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Is because there's no consequence for them doing a bad job, so they can take their own sweet time. You have to screw up pretty badly to get fired by the Federal government.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Is because there 's no consequence for them doing a bad job , so they can take their own sweet time .
You have to screw up pretty badly to get fired by the Federal government .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is because there's no consequence for them doing a bad job, so they can take their own sweet time.
You have to screw up pretty badly to get fired by the Federal government.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1455212.31373196</id>
	<title>Thus the old libertarian joke...</title>
	<author>engineer\_uhg</author>
	<datestamp>1267815360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>"It's a good thing we don't get all the government we pay for!"</htmltext>
<tokenext>" It 's a good thing we do n't get all the government we pay for !
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"It's a good thing we don't get all the government we pay for!
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1455212.31373830</id>
	<title>Re:Possibly another reason</title>
	<author>jimbolauski</author>
	<datestamp>1267818060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>1) no argument there<br>
2) I find it funny that the government is forcing all hospitals to keep records online while totaly ignoring how much it will cost them and how much time will be spent acheiving this. Yet they will undoubtly make sure that there is a loophole granted to government institutions so they don't have to upgrade.  The governemnt waists billions of dollars on "economic redevelopment" yet they refuse to spend the necessiary money to make them more effective.<br>
3)Most of the staff will be let go/given early retirement because the tasks will be automated, they will no longer need someone to "phyiscally take the specs from the customer to the engineers"<br>
4)If it doesn't further their political agendia politians are not interested.<br>
5)All new systems have problems but saying that moving from printing out a document just to type in back in in another format will be faster is foolish.</htmltext>
<tokenext>1 ) no argument there 2 ) I find it funny that the government is forcing all hospitals to keep records online while totaly ignoring how much it will cost them and how much time will be spent acheiving this .
Yet they will undoubtly make sure that there is a loophole granted to government institutions so they do n't have to upgrade .
The governemnt waists billions of dollars on " economic redevelopment " yet they refuse to spend the necessiary money to make them more effective .
3 ) Most of the staff will be let go/given early retirement because the tasks will be automated , they will no longer need someone to " phyiscally take the specs from the customer to the engineers " 4 ) If it does n't further their political agendia politians are not interested .
5 ) All new systems have problems but saying that moving from printing out a document just to type in back in in another format will be faster is foolish .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>1) no argument there
2) I find it funny that the government is forcing all hospitals to keep records online while totaly ignoring how much it will cost them and how much time will be spent acheiving this.
Yet they will undoubtly make sure that there is a loophole granted to government institutions so they don't have to upgrade.
The governemnt waists billions of dollars on "economic redevelopment" yet they refuse to spend the necessiary money to make them more effective.
3)Most of the staff will be let go/given early retirement because the tasks will be automated, they will no longer need someone to "phyiscally take the specs from the customer to the engineers"
4)If it doesn't further their political agendia politians are not interested.
5)All new systems have problems but saying that moving from printing out a document just to type in back in in another format will be faster is foolish.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1455212.31373062</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1455212.31374380</id>
	<title>Re:Possibly another reason</title>
	<author>Mindcontrolled</author>
	<datestamp>1267820520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Hehe, do you think this has gone away? I am working for a firm that has several multinational corporations as clients. A sizable number of them demand the documents we prepare for them to be sent on 3.5 inch floppies by mail. The internal bureaucracies of corporations are not a wee bit more agile than government bureaucracies. Actually, dealing with our local patent office here is way more modern than dealing with most of our private industry clients. Heck, *I* get my e-mails printed out and brought to my desk. (It is mandated by law, however, that we keep a complete paper record, which is not a bad idea, in my opinion.)</htmltext>
<tokenext>Hehe , do you think this has gone away ?
I am working for a firm that has several multinational corporations as clients .
A sizable number of them demand the documents we prepare for them to be sent on 3.5 inch floppies by mail .
The internal bureaucracies of corporations are not a wee bit more agile than government bureaucracies .
Actually , dealing with our local patent office here is way more modern than dealing with most of our private industry clients .
Heck , * I * get my e-mails printed out and brought to my desk .
( It is mandated by law , however , that we keep a complete paper record , which is not a bad idea , in my opinion .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hehe, do you think this has gone away?
I am working for a firm that has several multinational corporations as clients.
A sizable number of them demand the documents we prepare for them to be sent on 3.5 inch floppies by mail.
The internal bureaucracies of corporations are not a wee bit more agile than government bureaucracies.
Actually, dealing with our local patent office here is way more modern than dealing with most of our private industry clients.
Heck, *I* get my e-mails printed out and brought to my desk.
(It is mandated by law, however, that we keep a complete paper record, which is not a bad idea, in my opinion.
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1455212.31372998</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1455212.31373116</id>
	<title>Re:Healthcare</title>
	<author>99BottlesOfBeerInMyF</author>
	<datestamp>1267814940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>We're all thinking it, so I'll say it: "Hey, let's let our government handle healthcare to increase effeciency[sic]"</p></div><p>Obviously you haven't dealt with the private healthcare industry. The insurance companies (for example) actually have motivation to make simple task harder for their customers because their job is to get people's money then make it as hard as possible for people to ever get any back. So they invent useless paperwork and rules and procedures to discourage the process. Trust me, I've been there. When you're really, really ill you better hope you have some good friends because there is no way you're going to stay on top of the paperwork and phone calls needed.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>We 're all thinking it , so I 'll say it : " Hey , let 's let our government handle healthcare to increase effeciency [ sic ] " Obviously you have n't dealt with the private healthcare industry .
The insurance companies ( for example ) actually have motivation to make simple task harder for their customers because their job is to get people 's money then make it as hard as possible for people to ever get any back .
So they invent useless paperwork and rules and procedures to discourage the process .
Trust me , I 've been there .
When you 're really , really ill you better hope you have some good friends because there is no way you 're going to stay on top of the paperwork and phone calls needed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We're all thinking it, so I'll say it: "Hey, let's let our government handle healthcare to increase effeciency[sic]"Obviously you haven't dealt with the private healthcare industry.
The insurance companies (for example) actually have motivation to make simple task harder for their customers because their job is to get people's money then make it as hard as possible for people to ever get any back.
So they invent useless paperwork and rules and procedures to discourage the process.
Trust me, I've been there.
When you're really, really ill you better hope you have some good friends because there is no way you're going to stay on top of the paperwork and phone calls needed.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1455212.31372896</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1455212.31378648</id>
	<title>Re:Healthcare</title>
	<author>anaesthetica</author>
	<datestamp>1267809480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Food has no market.</p><p>When the product is a NEED rather than a WANT, the whole tone of business is changed. Food producers knows you NEED them, so they really don't give a fuck about you and know your dollars will flow in their direction no matter what you think about them.</p><p>People opposed to state-run food production are ignorant and/or complete liars; people who think food 'markets' are competitive are simply blind to reality and echoing irrational rhetoric.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Food has no market.When the product is a NEED rather than a WANT , the whole tone of business is changed .
Food producers knows you NEED them , so they really do n't give a fuck about you and know your dollars will flow in their direction no matter what you think about them.People opposed to state-run food production are ignorant and/or complete liars ; people who think food 'markets ' are competitive are simply blind to reality and echoing irrational rhetoric .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Food has no market.When the product is a NEED rather than a WANT, the whole tone of business is changed.
Food producers knows you NEED them, so they really don't give a fuck about you and know your dollars will flow in their direction no matter what you think about them.People opposed to state-run food production are ignorant and/or complete liars; people who think food 'markets' are competitive are simply blind to reality and echoing irrational rhetoric.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1455212.31374018</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1455212.31375844</id>
	<title>Re:Healthcare</title>
	<author>mrlibertarian</author>
	<datestamp>1267784940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>So if the government is a bunch of incompetent, inefficient morons who can never be as good as private industry, then why the hell do you care if they give people the OPTION of choosing a government plan?</i> <br> <br>I can answer that. It's because the ONLY reason to offer a government option instead of a private option is so that the government option will get some unfair advantage. Maybe the plan will receive tax money. Maybe the plan will receive a special tax break. It may be subtle, but there will be <i>some</i> unfair advantage. If there wasn't one, then the public option supporters would just start their own, private co-op. There would be no need to go through the government, and no need to make compromises with republicans or conservative democrats.<br> <br>The government does not have some sort of magic power that will make the production process more efficient. Anything the government does through force could instead be done by private parties, so long as all of the parties involved will benefit from cooperation. If someone tells you that the government can make something more efficient, then keep a sharp eye on your wallet, because it's about to be picked.</htmltext>
<tokenext>So if the government is a bunch of incompetent , inefficient morons who can never be as good as private industry , then why the hell do you care if they give people the OPTION of choosing a government plan ?
I can answer that .
It 's because the ONLY reason to offer a government option instead of a private option is so that the government option will get some unfair advantage .
Maybe the plan will receive tax money .
Maybe the plan will receive a special tax break .
It may be subtle , but there will be some unfair advantage .
If there was n't one , then the public option supporters would just start their own , private co-op .
There would be no need to go through the government , and no need to make compromises with republicans or conservative democrats .
The government does not have some sort of magic power that will make the production process more efficient .
Anything the government does through force could instead be done by private parties , so long as all of the parties involved will benefit from cooperation .
If someone tells you that the government can make something more efficient , then keep a sharp eye on your wallet , because it 's about to be picked .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So if the government is a bunch of incompetent, inefficient morons who can never be as good as private industry, then why the hell do you care if they give people the OPTION of choosing a government plan?
I can answer that.
It's because the ONLY reason to offer a government option instead of a private option is so that the government option will get some unfair advantage.
Maybe the plan will receive tax money.
Maybe the plan will receive a special tax break.
It may be subtle, but there will be some unfair advantage.
If there wasn't one, then the public option supporters would just start their own, private co-op.
There would be no need to go through the government, and no need to make compromises with republicans or conservative democrats.
The government does not have some sort of magic power that will make the production process more efficient.
Anything the government does through force could instead be done by private parties, so long as all of the parties involved will benefit from cooperation.
If someone tells you that the government can make something more efficient, then keep a sharp eye on your wallet, because it's about to be picked.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1455212.31373242</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1455212.31373746</id>
	<title>Re:Healthcare</title>
	<author>99BottlesOfBeerInMyF</author>
	<datestamp>1267817700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I don't know what kind of insurance you have, but I think you need to look for a different provider.</p></div><p>None, because no one will sell it to me in the states.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>I have what is probably pretty run-of-the-mill Blue Cross, and I've been through a couple of surgeries, my wife has been through a couple, and we both have prescriptions, as well as two kids that occasionally get hurt and need emergency room visits, etc. And in all those years, I've filled out very little paperwork.</p></div><p>Yeah, I used to have Blue Cross of Maryland, supposedly one of the best in the country because of stricter laws there. Then I experienced long term illness that wasn't one of the common problems, you know the couple dozen illnesses that make up 90\% of cases. That's when the paperwork became insane. I wrote just my name address, phone number, and social security number on a sheet of paper almost every day for no reason whatsoever other than they needed me to write it for the twentieth time. That's annoying when you're well. When you're in and out of consciousness and vomiting all the time it's inhumane. </p><p><div class="quote"><p>. The only thing I pay for up front is a co-pay for visits, surgeries, and drugs.</p> </div><p>Yeah, thats fine until they start wanting multiple doctors to sign off on procedures and start denying procedures for no real reason. I ended up tens of thousands of dollars out of pocket for procedures it was too difficult to get them to pay for.</p><p>Just hope you never get sick to the point where the cost of your care starts to go above the profit them made from your premiums... you know what insurance is supposed to be for.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't know what kind of insurance you have , but I think you need to look for a different provider.None , because no one will sell it to me in the states.I have what is probably pretty run-of-the-mill Blue Cross , and I 've been through a couple of surgeries , my wife has been through a couple , and we both have prescriptions , as well as two kids that occasionally get hurt and need emergency room visits , etc .
And in all those years , I 've filled out very little paperwork.Yeah , I used to have Blue Cross of Maryland , supposedly one of the best in the country because of stricter laws there .
Then I experienced long term illness that was n't one of the common problems , you know the couple dozen illnesses that make up 90 \ % of cases .
That 's when the paperwork became insane .
I wrote just my name address , phone number , and social security number on a sheet of paper almost every day for no reason whatsoever other than they needed me to write it for the twentieth time .
That 's annoying when you 're well .
When you 're in and out of consciousness and vomiting all the time it 's inhumane .
. The only thing I pay for up front is a co-pay for visits , surgeries , and drugs .
Yeah , thats fine until they start wanting multiple doctors to sign off on procedures and start denying procedures for no real reason .
I ended up tens of thousands of dollars out of pocket for procedures it was too difficult to get them to pay for.Just hope you never get sick to the point where the cost of your care starts to go above the profit them made from your premiums... you know what insurance is supposed to be for .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't know what kind of insurance you have, but I think you need to look for a different provider.None, because no one will sell it to me in the states.I have what is probably pretty run-of-the-mill Blue Cross, and I've been through a couple of surgeries, my wife has been through a couple, and we both have prescriptions, as well as two kids that occasionally get hurt and need emergency room visits, etc.
And in all those years, I've filled out very little paperwork.Yeah, I used to have Blue Cross of Maryland, supposedly one of the best in the country because of stricter laws there.
Then I experienced long term illness that wasn't one of the common problems, you know the couple dozen illnesses that make up 90\% of cases.
That's when the paperwork became insane.
I wrote just my name address, phone number, and social security number on a sheet of paper almost every day for no reason whatsoever other than they needed me to write it for the twentieth time.
That's annoying when you're well.
When you're in and out of consciousness and vomiting all the time it's inhumane.
. The only thing I pay for up front is a co-pay for visits, surgeries, and drugs.
Yeah, thats fine until they start wanting multiple doctors to sign off on procedures and start denying procedures for no real reason.
I ended up tens of thousands of dollars out of pocket for procedures it was too difficult to get them to pay for.Just hope you never get sick to the point where the cost of your care starts to go above the profit them made from your premiums... you know what insurance is supposed to be for.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1455212.31373296</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1455212.31373568</id>
	<title>Re:Healthcare</title>
	<author>phantomfive</author>
	<datestamp>1267816980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>So if the government is a bunch of incompetent, inefficient morons who can never be as good as private industry, then why the hell do you care if they give people the OPTION of choosing a government plan?</p></div><p>This is apparently what happened in Maine, where they actually have a public option: no one really signed up for it.<br> <br>
I think the reason people dislike the public option is because they view it as the path to 'socialized' medicine (or single payer, but I call it socialized because I am talking about the point of view of those who oppose it). It is easy to see how this could happen: for example, if the new bill requires expensive treatments to be covered, but also prevents premiums from rising, all the other insurance companies will go out of business. The only thing left will be the public option. Whether that is Obama's plan or not, the mechanisms to do so are built into his bill, so it is possible.<br> <br>
Personally all I really want is accessible, affordable healthcare. Whether it comes through a public option or some other way, I don't care so much, but so far no one has presented a plan with that result.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>So if the government is a bunch of incompetent , inefficient morons who can never be as good as private industry , then why the hell do you care if they give people the OPTION of choosing a government plan ? This is apparently what happened in Maine , where they actually have a public option : no one really signed up for it .
I think the reason people dislike the public option is because they view it as the path to 'socialized ' medicine ( or single payer , but I call it socialized because I am talking about the point of view of those who oppose it ) .
It is easy to see how this could happen : for example , if the new bill requires expensive treatments to be covered , but also prevents premiums from rising , all the other insurance companies will go out of business .
The only thing left will be the public option .
Whether that is Obama 's plan or not , the mechanisms to do so are built into his bill , so it is possible .
Personally all I really want is accessible , affordable healthcare .
Whether it comes through a public option or some other way , I do n't care so much , but so far no one has presented a plan with that result .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So if the government is a bunch of incompetent, inefficient morons who can never be as good as private industry, then why the hell do you care if they give people the OPTION of choosing a government plan?This is apparently what happened in Maine, where they actually have a public option: no one really signed up for it.
I think the reason people dislike the public option is because they view it as the path to 'socialized' medicine (or single payer, but I call it socialized because I am talking about the point of view of those who oppose it).
It is easy to see how this could happen: for example, if the new bill requires expensive treatments to be covered, but also prevents premiums from rising, all the other insurance companies will go out of business.
The only thing left will be the public option.
Whether that is Obama's plan or not, the mechanisms to do so are built into his bill, so it is possible.
Personally all I really want is accessible, affordable healthcare.
Whether it comes through a public option or some other way, I don't care so much, but so far no one has presented a plan with that result.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1455212.31373242</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1455212.31375848</id>
	<title>Are You Sure You Want Them Efficient?</title>
	<author>GREY\_LENSMAN312</author>
	<datestamp>1267784940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>On some level, I do not want the government to be more streamlined and effective. Wait until they can track your Carbon output, recycling percentage, anything else they want to monitor for taxation or enforcement purposes. The (it will protect the children!)National Data Mining Information Recovery and Response Act of 2017 anyone?</htmltext>
<tokenext>On some level , I do not want the government to be more streamlined and effective .
Wait until they can track your Carbon output , recycling percentage , anything else they want to monitor for taxation or enforcement purposes .
The ( it will protect the children !
) National Data Mining Information Recovery and Response Act of 2017 anyone ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>On some level, I do not want the government to be more streamlined and effective.
Wait until they can track your Carbon output, recycling percentage, anything else they want to monitor for taxation or enforcement purposes.
The (it will protect the children!
)National Data Mining Information Recovery and Response Act of 2017 anyone?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1455212.31373172</id>
	<title>Hobby Lobby?</title>
	<author>tthomas48</author>
	<datestamp>1267815180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You ever been to Hobby Lobby? The private sector can do it worse. And at least we can lobby or run for office to make the government use bar-code scanners.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You ever been to Hobby Lobby ?
The private sector can do it worse .
And at least we can lobby or run for office to make the government use bar-code scanners .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You ever been to Hobby Lobby?
The private sector can do it worse.
And at least we can lobby or run for office to make the government use bar-code scanners.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1455212.31373148</id>
	<title>Re:Possibly another reason</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267815060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's rather straightforward actually, companies are kept efficient due to the profit/loss mechanism, if a company is horrible inefficient it loses money and this inefficiency is clearly visible through accounting.</p><p>Government has no profit/loss mechanism since it's earnings are derived by taxation, and when something is inefficient it is said that more funding is required to alleviate the problem. Outside of government if something is horribly inefficient it usually goes bankrupt (at least in the past this was the case).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's rather straightforward actually , companies are kept efficient due to the profit/loss mechanism , if a company is horrible inefficient it loses money and this inefficiency is clearly visible through accounting.Government has no profit/loss mechanism since it 's earnings are derived by taxation , and when something is inefficient it is said that more funding is required to alleviate the problem .
Outside of government if something is horribly inefficient it usually goes bankrupt ( at least in the past this was the case ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's rather straightforward actually, companies are kept efficient due to the profit/loss mechanism, if a company is horrible inefficient it loses money and this inefficiency is clearly visible through accounting.Government has no profit/loss mechanism since it's earnings are derived by taxation, and when something is inefficient it is said that more funding is required to alleviate the problem.
Outside of government if something is horribly inefficient it usually goes bankrupt (at least in the past this was the case).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1455212.31372994</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1455212.31372896</id>
	<title>Healthcare</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267813920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>We're all thinking it, so I'll say it:  "Hey, let's let our government handle healthcare to increase effeciency"</htmltext>
<tokenext>We 're all thinking it , so I 'll say it : " Hey , let 's let our government handle healthcare to increase effeciency "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We're all thinking it, so I'll say it:  "Hey, let's let our government handle healthcare to increase effeciency"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1455212.31372994</id>
	<title>Re:Possibly another reason</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267814340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I never understood this.  You would think the entity in charge of keeping things running would want them done quickly and accurate...the amount of trashy, incompetent work and workers that the US Government voluntarily puts up with has always been a confusing subject.  There are plenty of skilled people out there who likely would work for the government, if it wasn't so damn inefficient.</p><p>Hell, I would...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I never understood this .
You would think the entity in charge of keeping things running would want them done quickly and accurate...the amount of trashy , incompetent work and workers that the US Government voluntarily puts up with has always been a confusing subject .
There are plenty of skilled people out there who likely would work for the government , if it was n't so damn inefficient.Hell , I would.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I never understood this.
You would think the entity in charge of keeping things running would want them done quickly and accurate...the amount of trashy, incompetent work and workers that the US Government voluntarily puts up with has always been a confusing subject.
There are plenty of skilled people out there who likely would work for the government, if it wasn't so damn inefficient.Hell, I would...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1455212.31372838</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1455212.31373324</id>
	<title>It's about time someone provided evidence.</title>
	<author>FriendlyPrimate</author>
	<datestamp>1267815960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'm glad SOMEONE has finally point out what some of these inefficiencies are.  I (like many others here) consider myself a fiscal conservative.  But it bugs the heck out of me that Republicans are always complaining about government inefficiency, but they never provide any evidence to back it up, or propose anything to improve the inefficiencies (except cutting taxes...whatever THAT's supposed to do).  Republicans don't WANT to solve inefficiencies in government for fear of losing a useful campaign issue.  Everything is "pork"....unless it's money being spent in their district, then it's vital for helping their economy.  And that makes them all the more hypocritical in my eyes.  Unfortunately, the Democrats aren't doing anything about it either, but at least they're not hypocrites.  <br> <br>
I would LOVE it if Obama started an Efficiency-in-Government initiative, but he hasn't lived up to the hype.  And of course the Republicans/Fox News would somehow manage to spin it as being socialist/communist anyway.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm glad SOMEONE has finally point out what some of these inefficiencies are .
I ( like many others here ) consider myself a fiscal conservative .
But it bugs the heck out of me that Republicans are always complaining about government inefficiency , but they never provide any evidence to back it up , or propose anything to improve the inefficiencies ( except cutting taxes...whatever THAT 's supposed to do ) .
Republicans do n't WANT to solve inefficiencies in government for fear of losing a useful campaign issue .
Everything is " pork " ....unless it 's money being spent in their district , then it 's vital for helping their economy .
And that makes them all the more hypocritical in my eyes .
Unfortunately , the Democrats are n't doing anything about it either , but at least they 're not hypocrites .
I would LOVE it if Obama started an Efficiency-in-Government initiative , but he has n't lived up to the hype .
And of course the Republicans/Fox News would somehow manage to spin it as being socialist/communist anyway .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm glad SOMEONE has finally point out what some of these inefficiencies are.
I (like many others here) consider myself a fiscal conservative.
But it bugs the heck out of me that Republicans are always complaining about government inefficiency, but they never provide any evidence to back it up, or propose anything to improve the inefficiencies (except cutting taxes...whatever THAT's supposed to do).
Republicans don't WANT to solve inefficiencies in government for fear of losing a useful campaign issue.
Everything is "pork"....unless it's money being spent in their district, then it's vital for helping their economy.
And that makes them all the more hypocritical in my eyes.
Unfortunately, the Democrats aren't doing anything about it either, but at least they're not hypocrites.
I would LOVE it if Obama started an Efficiency-in-Government initiative, but he hasn't lived up to the hype.
And of course the Republicans/Fox News would somehow manage to spin it as being socialist/communist anyway.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1455212.31373470</id>
	<title>I love government inefficiency</title>
	<author>Brandybuck</author>
	<datestamp>1267816500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I love government inefficiency. It slows down the works. It's the next best thing to gridlock. When it comes to infringing my rights, taking my money, regulating my conduct, and snooping into my affairs, I want the government to be as inefficient as possible.</p><p>Do you guys really want the USPTO cranking out fifty thousand patents a day?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I love government inefficiency .
It slows down the works .
It 's the next best thing to gridlock .
When it comes to infringing my rights , taking my money , regulating my conduct , and snooping into my affairs , I want the government to be as inefficient as possible.Do you guys really want the USPTO cranking out fifty thousand patents a day ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I love government inefficiency.
It slows down the works.
It's the next best thing to gridlock.
When it comes to infringing my rights, taking my money, regulating my conduct, and snooping into my affairs, I want the government to be as inefficient as possible.Do you guys really want the USPTO cranking out fifty thousand patents a day?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1455212.31373014</id>
	<title>lol</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267814460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>and you want these touch holes in charge of your health care?</htmltext>
<tokenext>and you want these touch holes in charge of your health care ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>and you want these touch holes in charge of your health care?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1455212.31374156</id>
	<title>Re:Possibly another reason</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267819620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>One talking guy suggested that the reason government in the US is inefficient is because we expect it to be, and I think there is some truth to that. When was the last time you ever heard a politician say, "government is inefficient, and here is how we can make it more efficient!"</p></div></blockquote><p>Actually, I hear that all the time (some of the proposals are sensible, some are ridiculous, but that's the same in any area of human endeavour.) OTOH, its not something you usually hear much of through the filter of the major media, which is usually more interested in focussing on the fireworks of political conflict without the substance of competing proposals.</p><blockquote><div><p> It wouldn't be hard, there is so much low-hanging fruit on the tree of inefficiency. You could allow useless people to be fired, or change budgeting procedures so saving money is rewarded instead of punished.</p></div></blockquote><p>There are problems with those "simple" proposals is:<br>(1) there are usual processes in place designed to assure that people that are demonstrably incompetent or negligent can be fired. Proposals to make it easier usually amount to making it easier for managers to arbitrarily fire people, which was the case before civil service protections existed, and had all kinds of bad results, which is why civil service protections were adopted in the first place. Managers in public service often don't use the existing processes for a number of reasons, one of them being that blaming the "fact" that its too hard to meet the requirements provides a convenient cover for their own performance.<br>(2) "Budgetting procedures" don't currently exist to to punish saving money. OTOH, if you don't take funds away from programs that have reduced costs, you don't actually acheive any savings; the big problem with budgeting and punishing cost savings is that it is frequent at fairly low levels for assumptions to get made about cost savings that <i>will be</i> realized by improvements, and for funds to be moved out in advance of concrete results demonstrating the decreased need for funds to do the job. Experience with this makes line managers reluctant to support (much less propose) projects that would make their units more efficient, for fear that funds will be preemptively reallocated based on assumptions of how the project will turn out, before the project is completed (and sometimes this happens, and then the funding for the project itself is taken away, so none of the savings ever materialize.) It's not easy to fix this with changing procedures, because its not something that exists formally within the procedures to start with.</p><blockquote><div><p>In other countries, a government job is something you go to college for, and are trained for. It is something prestigious, and requires (often difficult) exams.</p></div></blockquote><p>Many government jobs in the US require college (and even graduate) education in specific fields, and many require passing civil service exams (which can, sometimes, be difficult) as well. [OTOH, there seems to be a trend away from skills exams to favor "education and experience" exams, which aren't "difficult" in the same sense.]</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>One talking guy suggested that the reason government in the US is inefficient is because we expect it to be , and I think there is some truth to that .
When was the last time you ever heard a politician say , " government is inefficient , and here is how we can make it more efficient !
" Actually , I hear that all the time ( some of the proposals are sensible , some are ridiculous , but that 's the same in any area of human endeavour .
) OTOH , its not something you usually hear much of through the filter of the major media , which is usually more interested in focussing on the fireworks of political conflict without the substance of competing proposals .
It would n't be hard , there is so much low-hanging fruit on the tree of inefficiency .
You could allow useless people to be fired , or change budgeting procedures so saving money is rewarded instead of punished.There are problems with those " simple " proposals is : ( 1 ) there are usual processes in place designed to assure that people that are demonstrably incompetent or negligent can be fired .
Proposals to make it easier usually amount to making it easier for managers to arbitrarily fire people , which was the case before civil service protections existed , and had all kinds of bad results , which is why civil service protections were adopted in the first place .
Managers in public service often do n't use the existing processes for a number of reasons , one of them being that blaming the " fact " that its too hard to meet the requirements provides a convenient cover for their own performance .
( 2 ) " Budgetting procedures " do n't currently exist to to punish saving money .
OTOH , if you do n't take funds away from programs that have reduced costs , you do n't actually acheive any savings ; the big problem with budgeting and punishing cost savings is that it is frequent at fairly low levels for assumptions to get made about cost savings that will be realized by improvements , and for funds to be moved out in advance of concrete results demonstrating the decreased need for funds to do the job .
Experience with this makes line managers reluctant to support ( much less propose ) projects that would make their units more efficient , for fear that funds will be preemptively reallocated based on assumptions of how the project will turn out , before the project is completed ( and sometimes this happens , and then the funding for the project itself is taken away , so none of the savings ever materialize .
) It 's not easy to fix this with changing procedures , because its not something that exists formally within the procedures to start with.In other countries , a government job is something you go to college for , and are trained for .
It is something prestigious , and requires ( often difficult ) exams.Many government jobs in the US require college ( and even graduate ) education in specific fields , and many require passing civil service exams ( which can , sometimes , be difficult ) as well .
[ OTOH , there seems to be a trend away from skills exams to favor " education and experience " exams , which are n't " difficult " in the same sense .
]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>One talking guy suggested that the reason government in the US is inefficient is because we expect it to be, and I think there is some truth to that.
When was the last time you ever heard a politician say, "government is inefficient, and here is how we can make it more efficient!
"Actually, I hear that all the time (some of the proposals are sensible, some are ridiculous, but that's the same in any area of human endeavour.
) OTOH, its not something you usually hear much of through the filter of the major media, which is usually more interested in focussing on the fireworks of political conflict without the substance of competing proposals.
It wouldn't be hard, there is so much low-hanging fruit on the tree of inefficiency.
You could allow useless people to be fired, or change budgeting procedures so saving money is rewarded instead of punished.There are problems with those "simple" proposals is:(1) there are usual processes in place designed to assure that people that are demonstrably incompetent or negligent can be fired.
Proposals to make it easier usually amount to making it easier for managers to arbitrarily fire people, which was the case before civil service protections existed, and had all kinds of bad results, which is why civil service protections were adopted in the first place.
Managers in public service often don't use the existing processes for a number of reasons, one of them being that blaming the "fact" that its too hard to meet the requirements provides a convenient cover for their own performance.
(2) "Budgetting procedures" don't currently exist to to punish saving money.
OTOH, if you don't take funds away from programs that have reduced costs, you don't actually acheive any savings; the big problem with budgeting and punishing cost savings is that it is frequent at fairly low levels for assumptions to get made about cost savings that will be realized by improvements, and for funds to be moved out in advance of concrete results demonstrating the decreased need for funds to do the job.
Experience with this makes line managers reluctant to support (much less propose) projects that would make their units more efficient, for fear that funds will be preemptively reallocated based on assumptions of how the project will turn out, before the project is completed (and sometimes this happens, and then the funding for the project itself is taken away, so none of the savings ever materialize.
) It's not easy to fix this with changing procedures, because its not something that exists formally within the procedures to start with.In other countries, a government job is something you go to college for, and are trained for.
It is something prestigious, and requires (often difficult) exams.Many government jobs in the US require college (and even graduate) education in specific fields, and many require passing civil service exams (which can, sometimes, be difficult) as well.
[OTOH, there seems to be a trend away from skills exams to favor "education and experience" exams, which aren't "difficult" in the same sense.
]
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1455212.31373170</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1455212.31375126</id>
	<title>Re:Possibly another reason</title>
	<author>OpieTaylor</author>
	<datestamp>1267781100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>        phantomfive wrote: "we have Republicans who say, 'government is too big, we need to either cut it or cut its budget'"</p><p>You didn't put enough emphasis on the word SAY.  Republicans **say** government is too big, but what they mean is: give some of that money to our interest groups (defense, fossil fuel, financial, health insurance, etc. companies).  I'm not defending Democratic spending--I'm just saying at least they don't lie about it.</p><p>Look it up: spending under Republican presidents Reagan, Bush1, and Bush2 all went way up.<br>Reagan - 80\% increase<br>Bush1 - 30\% increase<br>Bush2 - 67\% increase</p><p>source: <a href="http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2010/assets/hist.pdf" title="whitehouse.gov" rel="nofollow">http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2010/assets/hist.pdf</a> [whitehouse.gov]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>phantomfive wrote : " we have Republicans who say , 'government is too big , we need to either cut it or cut its budget ' " You did n't put enough emphasis on the word SAY .
Republicans * * say * * government is too big , but what they mean is : give some of that money to our interest groups ( defense , fossil fuel , financial , health insurance , etc .
companies ) . I 'm not defending Democratic spending--I 'm just saying at least they do n't lie about it.Look it up : spending under Republican presidents Reagan , Bush1 , and Bush2 all went way up.Reagan - 80 \ % increaseBush1 - 30 \ % increaseBush2 - 67 \ % increasesource : http : //www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2010/assets/hist.pdf [ whitehouse.gov ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>        phantomfive wrote: "we have Republicans who say, 'government is too big, we need to either cut it or cut its budget'"You didn't put enough emphasis on the word SAY.
Republicans **say** government is too big, but what they mean is: give some of that money to our interest groups (defense, fossil fuel, financial, health insurance, etc.
companies).  I'm not defending Democratic spending--I'm just saying at least they don't lie about it.Look it up: spending under Republican presidents Reagan, Bush1, and Bush2 all went way up.Reagan - 80\% increaseBush1 - 30\% increaseBush2 - 67\% increasesource: http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2010/assets/hist.pdf [whitehouse.gov]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1455212.31373170</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1455212.31380934</id>
	<title>Re:Healthcare</title>
	<author>StopKoolaidPoliticsT</author>
	<datestamp>1267893180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Don't forget about the ~$60 billion annually in Medicare fraud, which adds another 14\% onto your Medicare overhead. You can't just count administrative costs.<br> <br>

That puts Medicare right into the same range as private insurance in terms of total overhead.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Do n't forget about the ~ $ 60 billion annually in Medicare fraud , which adds another 14 \ % onto your Medicare overhead .
You ca n't just count administrative costs .
That puts Medicare right into the same range as private insurance in terms of total overhead .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Don't forget about the ~$60 billion annually in Medicare fraud, which adds another 14\% onto your Medicare overhead.
You can't just count administrative costs.
That puts Medicare right into the same range as private insurance in terms of total overhead.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1455212.31373612</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1455212.31376052</id>
	<title>Automation is not the Answer</title>
	<author>not-my-real-name</author>
	<datestamp>1267786200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm taking a class in enterprise modeling and the professor is adamant that most improvements come from improving the process.  A clear streamlined manual process can run rings around a well automated byzantine process.</p><p>The key is to take a big picture look at the whole process and then ask why things are done that way.</p><p>One of the examples from class was a process used to procure prototype parts.  The process used to take 80 days and people were happy with it.  He and a couple of grad students were able to reduce it to 20 days.</p><p>It's mostly getting rid of boneheaded things.  One supplier would build a prototype part before building the final part.  Why bother building a prototype of a prototype???  If you take a step back, you can start to find things like this and eliminated them.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm taking a class in enterprise modeling and the professor is adamant that most improvements come from improving the process .
A clear streamlined manual process can run rings around a well automated byzantine process.The key is to take a big picture look at the whole process and then ask why things are done that way.One of the examples from class was a process used to procure prototype parts .
The process used to take 80 days and people were happy with it .
He and a couple of grad students were able to reduce it to 20 days.It 's mostly getting rid of boneheaded things .
One supplier would build a prototype part before building the final part .
Why bother building a prototype of a prototype ? ? ?
If you take a step back , you can start to find things like this and eliminated them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm taking a class in enterprise modeling and the professor is adamant that most improvements come from improving the process.
A clear streamlined manual process can run rings around a well automated byzantine process.The key is to take a big picture look at the whole process and then ask why things are done that way.One of the examples from class was a process used to procure prototype parts.
The process used to take 80 days and people were happy with it.
He and a couple of grad students were able to reduce it to 20 days.It's mostly getting rid of boneheaded things.
One supplier would build a prototype part before building the final part.
Why bother building a prototype of a prototype???
If you take a step back, you can start to find things like this and eliminated them.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1455212.31374122</id>
	<title>Re:Possibly another reason</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267819440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>One talking guy suggested that the reason government in the US is inefficient is because we expect it to be, and I think there is some truth to that.  When was the last time you ever heard a politician say, "government is inefficient, and here is how we can make it more efficient!"</p> </div><p>Al Gore, "ReGo" http://www.ontheissues.org/celeb/Al\_Gore\_Government\_Reform.htm</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>One talking guy suggested that the reason government in the US is inefficient is because we expect it to be , and I think there is some truth to that .
When was the last time you ever heard a politician say , " government is inefficient , and here is how we can make it more efficient !
" Al Gore , " ReGo " http : //www.ontheissues.org/celeb/Al \ _Gore \ _Government \ _Reform.htm</tokentext>
<sentencetext>One talking guy suggested that the reason government in the US is inefficient is because we expect it to be, and I think there is some truth to that.
When was the last time you ever heard a politician say, "government is inefficient, and here is how we can make it more efficient!
" Al Gore, "ReGo" http://www.ontheissues.org/celeb/Al\_Gore\_Government\_Reform.htm
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1455212.31373170</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1455212.31373062</id>
	<title>Re:Possibly another reason</title>
	<author>garcia</author>
	<datestamp>1267814700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Is because there's no consequence for them doing a bad job, so they can take their own sweet time. You have to screw up pretty badly to get fired by the Federal government.</i></p><p>More than likely there are several reasons for this (not necessarily all at the same time--but perhaps):</p><p>1. They want to continue to increase staffing in their department. By proving that they are "swamped" with work they have more ability to do so. This increases the budget and thus the clout that the particular department has.</p><p>2. The process to upgrade the systems, and fill in all the historical information, would be too difficult on all levels (financial, training, and time) to do. It's easier to continue the antiquated processes.</p><p>3. The staff hired has been done so at a specific level of understanding. Upgrading the systems will create issues for these older unionized employees and thus they would need to be moved to another job, retrained and given a new job description and pay increase, or outright let go. Unions protect the employees against any kind of common sense options here and thus the status quo is preserved.</p><p>4. Some random political reason that we are not privy to.</p><p>5. The new system will not work nearly as well as the old because of various reasons including malice, incompetence, and bugs.</p><p>---</p><p>As a student of public administration, someone who lived through unionized state employment, and someone who tries to ensure the taxpayers are insulated from rising costs, I understand the desire for change to increase productivity and decrease time but the costs involved (human and otherwise) are much bigger than you'll ever care to think about.</p><p>Seriously, sometimes it's just better to live in the current world than bother screwing with something that "works".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Is because there 's no consequence for them doing a bad job , so they can take their own sweet time .
You have to screw up pretty badly to get fired by the Federal government.More than likely there are several reasons for this ( not necessarily all at the same time--but perhaps ) : 1 .
They want to continue to increase staffing in their department .
By proving that they are " swamped " with work they have more ability to do so .
This increases the budget and thus the clout that the particular department has.2 .
The process to upgrade the systems , and fill in all the historical information , would be too difficult on all levels ( financial , training , and time ) to do .
It 's easier to continue the antiquated processes.3 .
The staff hired has been done so at a specific level of understanding .
Upgrading the systems will create issues for these older unionized employees and thus they would need to be moved to another job , retrained and given a new job description and pay increase , or outright let go .
Unions protect the employees against any kind of common sense options here and thus the status quo is preserved.4 .
Some random political reason that we are not privy to.5 .
The new system will not work nearly as well as the old because of various reasons including malice , incompetence , and bugs.---As a student of public administration , someone who lived through unionized state employment , and someone who tries to ensure the taxpayers are insulated from rising costs , I understand the desire for change to increase productivity and decrease time but the costs involved ( human and otherwise ) are much bigger than you 'll ever care to think about.Seriously , sometimes it 's just better to live in the current world than bother screwing with something that " works " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is because there's no consequence for them doing a bad job, so they can take their own sweet time.
You have to screw up pretty badly to get fired by the Federal government.More than likely there are several reasons for this (not necessarily all at the same time--but perhaps):1.
They want to continue to increase staffing in their department.
By proving that they are "swamped" with work they have more ability to do so.
This increases the budget and thus the clout that the particular department has.2.
The process to upgrade the systems, and fill in all the historical information, would be too difficult on all levels (financial, training, and time) to do.
It's easier to continue the antiquated processes.3.
The staff hired has been done so at a specific level of understanding.
Upgrading the systems will create issues for these older unionized employees and thus they would need to be moved to another job, retrained and given a new job description and pay increase, or outright let go.
Unions protect the employees against any kind of common sense options here and thus the status quo is preserved.4.
Some random political reason that we are not privy to.5.
The new system will not work nearly as well as the old because of various reasons including malice, incompetence, and bugs.---As a student of public administration, someone who lived through unionized state employment, and someone who tries to ensure the taxpayers are insulated from rising costs, I understand the desire for change to increase productivity and decrease time but the costs involved (human and otherwise) are much bigger than you'll ever care to think about.Seriously, sometimes it's just better to live in the current world than bother screwing with something that "works".</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1455212.31372838</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1455212.31376604</id>
	<title>Re:Possibly another reason</title>
	<author>DarkOx</author>
	<datestamp>1267789560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I agree with you it is often better to live in the current world as long as things work.  These processes did work.  They were high tech in many cases when they went in.  The USPTO for instance a decade ago moved much faster whatever they were doing may have been antiquated by the standards even then but it worked.  I would have agreed with you and said you're right don't fix what aint broke.  Trouble is if that is your mentality you still need to be willing to recognize when it is broke, and do something about it when the time comes.</p><p>I am all for running a system until it will do no more, there is not need to be always chasing the latest and greatest and lots of good reasons not to do so, but we do need to make changes when changes are needed.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I agree with you it is often better to live in the current world as long as things work .
These processes did work .
They were high tech in many cases when they went in .
The USPTO for instance a decade ago moved much faster whatever they were doing may have been antiquated by the standards even then but it worked .
I would have agreed with you and said you 're right do n't fix what aint broke .
Trouble is if that is your mentality you still need to be willing to recognize when it is broke , and do something about it when the time comes.I am all for running a system until it will do no more , there is not need to be always chasing the latest and greatest and lots of good reasons not to do so , but we do need to make changes when changes are needed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I agree with you it is often better to live in the current world as long as things work.
These processes did work.
They were high tech in many cases when they went in.
The USPTO for instance a decade ago moved much faster whatever they were doing may have been antiquated by the standards even then but it worked.
I would have agreed with you and said you're right don't fix what aint broke.
Trouble is if that is your mentality you still need to be willing to recognize when it is broke, and do something about it when the time comes.I am all for running a system until it will do no more, there is not need to be always chasing the latest and greatest and lots of good reasons not to do so, but we do need to make changes when changes are needed.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1455212.31373062</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1455212.31374488</id>
	<title>Re:Healthcare</title>
	<author>atamido</author>
	<datestamp>1267821120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The fact is that Medicare and Medicaid are some of the most efficiently-run medical insurance programs in the country, with a higher percent spent on actual care than any private insurance company.</p></div><p>  That's like being declared king of the retards*. US healthcare is the worst care/$ in the world.  Being better than everyone else here is just not that impressive.</p><p>* Please forgive the insensitivity of the phrase as it makes the point well.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The fact is that Medicare and Medicaid are some of the most efficiently-run medical insurance programs in the country , with a higher percent spent on actual care than any private insurance company .
That 's like being declared king of the retards * .
US healthcare is the worst care/ $ in the world .
Being better than everyone else here is just not that impressive .
* Please forgive the insensitivity of the phrase as it makes the point well .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The fact is that Medicare and Medicaid are some of the most efficiently-run medical insurance programs in the country, with a higher percent spent on actual care than any private insurance company.
That's like being declared king of the retards*.
US healthcare is the worst care/$ in the world.
Being better than everyone else here is just not that impressive.
* Please forgive the insensitivity of the phrase as it makes the point well.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1455212.31373390</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1455212.31373390</id>
	<title>Re:Healthcare</title>
	<author>samkass</author>
	<datestamp>1267816200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>We're all thinking it, so I'll say it: "Hey, let's let our government handle healthcare to increase effeciency"</p></div></blockquote><p>Let's mark that one up there with the "It's snowing, so global warming can't exist".  We don't have to guess how it would work out, anyway.  The fact is that Medicare and Medicaid are some of the most efficiently-run medical insurance programs in the country, with a higher percent spent on actual care than any private insurance company.  It's too bad that even if the bill passes we wouldn't be able to get a public option.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>We 're all thinking it , so I 'll say it : " Hey , let 's let our government handle healthcare to increase effeciency " Let 's mark that one up there with the " It 's snowing , so global warming ca n't exist " .
We do n't have to guess how it would work out , anyway .
The fact is that Medicare and Medicaid are some of the most efficiently-run medical insurance programs in the country , with a higher percent spent on actual care than any private insurance company .
It 's too bad that even if the bill passes we would n't be able to get a public option .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We're all thinking it, so I'll say it: "Hey, let's let our government handle healthcare to increase effeciency"Let's mark that one up there with the "It's snowing, so global warming can't exist".
We don't have to guess how it would work out, anyway.
The fact is that Medicare and Medicaid are some of the most efficiently-run medical insurance programs in the country, with a higher percent spent on actual care than any private insurance company.
It's too bad that even if the bill passes we wouldn't be able to get a public option.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1455212.31372896</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1455212.31375338</id>
	<title>Re:Possibly another reason</title>
	<author>hey!</author>
	<datestamp>1267782240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There's a kind of inside joke government workers use when there aren't outsiders around. It goes like this: "A guy comes into the office and asks, 'How many people work here?'.   So I say, 'Oh, about half of us.'"</p><p>The truth is that if you look at any government agency where things get done, there will be a cadre of people who go above and beyond to make that happen.  It's not easy getting things done under the rules politicians insist upon.  I'm talking about the people who believe in public service, and the agency mission.  I have a friend who works for HUD.  He's passionate about access to housing for poor people. I've also known lots of absolutely stellar people working unglamorous and thankless public health and environmental protection jobs in the government sector.</p><p>I even knew an IRS auditor. All he wants from the vast majority of people is truthful documentation and an honest effort at tax compliance. As long as you do that he'll cut you all the slack he can find in the regulations. Why? Because most people *can't* commit very much fraud.  IRS already has most of the money you owe.   What little fraud an average guy can commit is so unlikely to succeed it's usually just a mistake. But he has to deal with people who are mad at him because of how much tax the law says they have to pay, because the politicians who wrote those laws use auditors as a scapegoat.  They'd like to reduce the number of auditors so the small number of people who have the financial sophistication to attempt serious fraud can get away with it.</p><p>Here's the take home lesson: everything you hate about government isn't the fault of government employees.  It's the fault of the politicians you elect to office.</p><p>I've worked with many state governments as a private contractor. Every time the politicians get caught with their hands in the cookie jar, they pass "ethics reform" that applies to state workers *but not to themselves*.  How dumb do we have to be not to figure that out? I've seen state employees who have to pay expenses out of their own pocket when they travel because the state travel reimbursement rates won't cover a decent hotel room. But the politicians are *still* flying off to those resort junkets.</p><p>So what about that other half? The half of government employees that's not really doing much work?  They're the politicians' fault too.  One thing I've learned in business is that good people are usually a bargain at whatever price they can command, but bad ones are worse than useless and still cost you money.  In most cases I'll take a guy who can command 100,000 in a field that normally pays 80,000 over four guys who can only command 50,000 in that field.</p><p>I've also seen some really, really horribly corrupt places.  They're not the norm, but you see them where there's a lot of political cynicism about public service. It is <em>not</em> a chicken or the egg problem.  It's the politicians.  They rail against *employee* corruption, but they don't take any effective steps against it because that would be breaking their rice bowl. For Chrissakes they talk about how bad the government *they're in complete control of* is?  How stupid can people get?</p><p>These are places where government is low-paid, and workers utrageously disrespected. Of course they attract a lot of people who think that honest public service is for suckers.  I can tell you stories that would make your hair stand on end.  But you know what, the people who keep voting for the same crooks deserve that kind of service.  What is amazing is that there are *still* people there who give honorable service under those conditions. In fact those people in the "half that works" are even more important, because they aren't 1/2 of workforce.  They're maybe 1/4.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There 's a kind of inside joke government workers use when there are n't outsiders around .
It goes like this : " A guy comes into the office and asks , 'How many people work here ? ' .
So I say , 'Oh , about half of us .
' " The truth is that if you look at any government agency where things get done , there will be a cadre of people who go above and beyond to make that happen .
It 's not easy getting things done under the rules politicians insist upon .
I 'm talking about the people who believe in public service , and the agency mission .
I have a friend who works for HUD .
He 's passionate about access to housing for poor people .
I 've also known lots of absolutely stellar people working unglamorous and thankless public health and environmental protection jobs in the government sector.I even knew an IRS auditor .
All he wants from the vast majority of people is truthful documentation and an honest effort at tax compliance .
As long as you do that he 'll cut you all the slack he can find in the regulations .
Why ? Because most people * ca n't * commit very much fraud .
IRS already has most of the money you owe .
What little fraud an average guy can commit is so unlikely to succeed it 's usually just a mistake .
But he has to deal with people who are mad at him because of how much tax the law says they have to pay , because the politicians who wrote those laws use auditors as a scapegoat .
They 'd like to reduce the number of auditors so the small number of people who have the financial sophistication to attempt serious fraud can get away with it.Here 's the take home lesson : everything you hate about government is n't the fault of government employees .
It 's the fault of the politicians you elect to office.I 've worked with many state governments as a private contractor .
Every time the politicians get caught with their hands in the cookie jar , they pass " ethics reform " that applies to state workers * but not to themselves * .
How dumb do we have to be not to figure that out ?
I 've seen state employees who have to pay expenses out of their own pocket when they travel because the state travel reimbursement rates wo n't cover a decent hotel room .
But the politicians are * still * flying off to those resort junkets.So what about that other half ?
The half of government employees that 's not really doing much work ?
They 're the politicians ' fault too .
One thing I 've learned in business is that good people are usually a bargain at whatever price they can command , but bad ones are worse than useless and still cost you money .
In most cases I 'll take a guy who can command 100,000 in a field that normally pays 80,000 over four guys who can only command 50,000 in that field.I 've also seen some really , really horribly corrupt places .
They 're not the norm , but you see them where there 's a lot of political cynicism about public service .
It is not a chicken or the egg problem .
It 's the politicians .
They rail against * employee * corruption , but they do n't take any effective steps against it because that would be breaking their rice bowl .
For Chrissakes they talk about how bad the government * they 're in complete control of * is ?
How stupid can people get ? These are places where government is low-paid , and workers utrageously disrespected .
Of course they attract a lot of people who think that honest public service is for suckers .
I can tell you stories that would make your hair stand on end .
But you know what , the people who keep voting for the same crooks deserve that kind of service .
What is amazing is that there are * still * people there who give honorable service under those conditions .
In fact those people in the " half that works " are even more important , because they are n't 1/2 of workforce .
They 're maybe 1/4 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There's a kind of inside joke government workers use when there aren't outsiders around.
It goes like this: "A guy comes into the office and asks, 'How many people work here?'.
So I say, 'Oh, about half of us.
'"The truth is that if you look at any government agency where things get done, there will be a cadre of people who go above and beyond to make that happen.
It's not easy getting things done under the rules politicians insist upon.
I'm talking about the people who believe in public service, and the agency mission.
I have a friend who works for HUD.
He's passionate about access to housing for poor people.
I've also known lots of absolutely stellar people working unglamorous and thankless public health and environmental protection jobs in the government sector.I even knew an IRS auditor.
All he wants from the vast majority of people is truthful documentation and an honest effort at tax compliance.
As long as you do that he'll cut you all the slack he can find in the regulations.
Why? Because most people *can't* commit very much fraud.
IRS already has most of the money you owe.
What little fraud an average guy can commit is so unlikely to succeed it's usually just a mistake.
But he has to deal with people who are mad at him because of how much tax the law says they have to pay, because the politicians who wrote those laws use auditors as a scapegoat.
They'd like to reduce the number of auditors so the small number of people who have the financial sophistication to attempt serious fraud can get away with it.Here's the take home lesson: everything you hate about government isn't the fault of government employees.
It's the fault of the politicians you elect to office.I've worked with many state governments as a private contractor.
Every time the politicians get caught with their hands in the cookie jar, they pass "ethics reform" that applies to state workers *but not to themselves*.
How dumb do we have to be not to figure that out?
I've seen state employees who have to pay expenses out of their own pocket when they travel because the state travel reimbursement rates won't cover a decent hotel room.
But the politicians are *still* flying off to those resort junkets.So what about that other half?
The half of government employees that's not really doing much work?
They're the politicians' fault too.
One thing I've learned in business is that good people are usually a bargain at whatever price they can command, but bad ones are worse than useless and still cost you money.
In most cases I'll take a guy who can command 100,000 in a field that normally pays 80,000 over four guys who can only command 50,000 in that field.I've also seen some really, really horribly corrupt places.
They're not the norm, but you see them where there's a lot of political cynicism about public service.
It is not a chicken or the egg problem.
It's the politicians.
They rail against *employee* corruption, but they don't take any effective steps against it because that would be breaking their rice bowl.
For Chrissakes they talk about how bad the government *they're in complete control of* is?
How stupid can people get?These are places where government is low-paid, and workers utrageously disrespected.
Of course they attract a lot of people who think that honest public service is for suckers.
I can tell you stories that would make your hair stand on end.
But you know what, the people who keep voting for the same crooks deserve that kind of service.
What is amazing is that there are *still* people there who give honorable service under those conditions.
In fact those people in the "half that works" are even more important, because they aren't 1/2 of workforce.
They're maybe 1/4.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1455212.31372994</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1455212.31379294</id>
	<title>+1 for unintended irony</title>
	<author>PatPending</author>
	<datestamp>1267905900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>At the time of this post, the quote at the bottom of the page was:

"What sin has not been committed in the name of efficiency?"</div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>At the time of this post , the quote at the bottom of the page was : " What sin has not been committed in the name of efficiency ?
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>At the time of this post, the quote at the bottom of the page was:

"What sin has not been committed in the name of efficiency?
"
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1455212.31373170</id>
	<title>Re:Possibly another reason</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267815180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>One talking guy suggested that the reason government in the US is inefficient is because we expect it to be, and I think there is some truth to that.  When was the last time you ever heard a politician say, "government is inefficient, and here is how we can make it more efficient!"  It wouldn't be hard, there is so much low-hanging fruit on the tree of inefficiency. You could allow useless people to be fired, or change budgeting procedures so saving money is rewarded instead of punished.<br> <br>
But we don't have any politicians who think like that, instead we have Republicans who say, "government is too big, we need to either cut it or cut its budget" and Democrats who seem to try to pretend the issue doesn't exist, I don't know what they are doing.<br> <br>
In other countries, a government job is something you go to college for, and are trained for. It is something prestigious, and requires (often difficult) exams.  I am not saying we should do this in the US, but I think we should be aware that there are alternatives, so we can choose which one we want.</htmltext>
<tokenext>One talking guy suggested that the reason government in the US is inefficient is because we expect it to be , and I think there is some truth to that .
When was the last time you ever heard a politician say , " government is inefficient , and here is how we can make it more efficient !
" It would n't be hard , there is so much low-hanging fruit on the tree of inefficiency .
You could allow useless people to be fired , or change budgeting procedures so saving money is rewarded instead of punished .
But we do n't have any politicians who think like that , instead we have Republicans who say , " government is too big , we need to either cut it or cut its budget " and Democrats who seem to try to pretend the issue does n't exist , I do n't know what they are doing .
In other countries , a government job is something you go to college for , and are trained for .
It is something prestigious , and requires ( often difficult ) exams .
I am not saying we should do this in the US , but I think we should be aware that there are alternatives , so we can choose which one we want .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>One talking guy suggested that the reason government in the US is inefficient is because we expect it to be, and I think there is some truth to that.
When was the last time you ever heard a politician say, "government is inefficient, and here is how we can make it more efficient!
"  It wouldn't be hard, there is so much low-hanging fruit on the tree of inefficiency.
You could allow useless people to be fired, or change budgeting procedures so saving money is rewarded instead of punished.
But we don't have any politicians who think like that, instead we have Republicans who say, "government is too big, we need to either cut it or cut its budget" and Democrats who seem to try to pretend the issue doesn't exist, I don't know what they are doing.
In other countries, a government job is something you go to college for, and are trained for.
It is something prestigious, and requires (often difficult) exams.
I am not saying we should do this in the US, but I think we should be aware that there are alternatives, so we can choose which one we want.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1455212.31372838</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1455212.31374038</id>
	<title>Re:Healthcare</title>
	<author>AP31R0N</author>
	<datestamp>1267819140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No one in their right mind is literally thinking that.  However comma it makes for a great strawman for the right to attack.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No one in their right mind is literally thinking that .
However comma it makes for a great strawman for the right to attack .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No one in their right mind is literally thinking that.
However comma it makes for a great strawman for the right to attack.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1455212.31372896</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1455212.31373282</id>
	<title>Re:Possibly another reason</title>
	<author>Marxist Hacker 42</author>
	<datestamp>1267815720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I wouldn't.  Not again, anyway.  Even State Government was too strange for me- policies limiting the ability of workers to get the information they needed, combined with an attitude that if you did your job well enough to actually have the time to do your job well, then you must not be the type of employee they wanted.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I would n't .
Not again , anyway .
Even State Government was too strange for me- policies limiting the ability of workers to get the information they needed , combined with an attitude that if you did your job well enough to actually have the time to do your job well , then you must not be the type of employee they wanted .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I wouldn't.
Not again, anyway.
Even State Government was too strange for me- policies limiting the ability of workers to get the information they needed, combined with an attitude that if you did your job well enough to actually have the time to do your job well, then you must not be the type of employee they wanted.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1455212.31372994</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1455212.31373786</id>
	<title>Re:Government? How about in the private sector?</title>
	<author>XxtraLarGe</author>
	<datestamp>1267817880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I always laugh at the comments for articles like this. When are people going to realise that there is just as much waste in the private sector? Corporate jets, business lunches, exorbitant salaries, etc are all just another form of waste. Not to mention the fact that plenty of business are only concerned with the short term financial gain (to please shareholders) and not the long term health of the business/product.</p></div><p>The difference being, my friend, is that if the private sector continues those practices, the people responsible for the practices get let go or they go out of business, and then the only people who pay for it are the shareholders, not the tax payers. That is, unless the Federal Government bails them out so they can continue with wasteful practices.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I always laugh at the comments for articles like this .
When are people going to realise that there is just as much waste in the private sector ?
Corporate jets , business lunches , exorbitant salaries , etc are all just another form of waste .
Not to mention the fact that plenty of business are only concerned with the short term financial gain ( to please shareholders ) and not the long term health of the business/product.The difference being , my friend , is that if the private sector continues those practices , the people responsible for the practices get let go or they go out of business , and then the only people who pay for it are the shareholders , not the tax payers .
That is , unless the Federal Government bails them out so they can continue with wasteful practices .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I always laugh at the comments for articles like this.
When are people going to realise that there is just as much waste in the private sector?
Corporate jets, business lunches, exorbitant salaries, etc are all just another form of waste.
Not to mention the fact that plenty of business are only concerned with the short term financial gain (to please shareholders) and not the long term health of the business/product.The difference being, my friend, is that if the private sector continues those practices, the people responsible for the practices get let go or they go out of business, and then the only people who pay for it are the shareholders, not the tax payers.
That is, unless the Federal Government bails them out so they can continue with wasteful practices.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1455212.31373058</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1455212.31373058</id>
	<title>Government? How about in the private sector?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267814700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I always laugh at the comments for articles like this.

When are people going to realise that there is just as much waste in the private sector? Corporate jets, business lunches, exorbitant salaries, etc are all just another form of waste. Not to mention the fact that plenty of business are only concerned with the short term financial gain (to please shareholders) and not the long term health of the business/product.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I always laugh at the comments for articles like this .
When are people going to realise that there is just as much waste in the private sector ?
Corporate jets , business lunches , exorbitant salaries , etc are all just another form of waste .
Not to mention the fact that plenty of business are only concerned with the short term financial gain ( to please shareholders ) and not the long term health of the business/product .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I always laugh at the comments for articles like this.
When are people going to realise that there is just as much waste in the private sector?
Corporate jets, business lunches, exorbitant salaries, etc are all just another form of waste.
Not to mention the fact that plenty of business are only concerned with the short term financial gain (to please shareholders) and not the long term health of the business/product.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1455212.31373804</id>
	<title>Re:Possibly another reason</title>
	<author>roman\_mir</author>
	<datestamp>1267817940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>As a student of public administration, someone who lived through unionized state employment, and someone who tries to ensure the taxpayers are insulated from rising costs, I understand the desire for change to increase productivity and decrease time but the costs involved (human and otherwise) are much bigger than you'll ever care to think about.</p></div><p>  -  I would say that you should be one of the last people who we should listen to then, when it comes to such advices.</p><p>You are saying you want to ensure that the taxpayers are insulated from rising costs, and I say you do them no favor.  First, by insulating anyone from reality, you are creating a false sense of stability in a system that is really not stable and any change to status quo will be much more violent an dramatic than if the change was gradual and somewhat constant.  Second, by insulating anyone from reality, you are hiding the problems in the system.  If people were not insulating from the rising costs, they would pay more attention to what is happening around them politically.</p><p>My point is valid, look at what just started happening at <a href="http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hBNLRiW12YKk2nY7vbCwE\_pYzLnwD9E8KB8G4" title="google.com">Berkeley</a> [google.com] and some other universities.  People, when their money is at stake (and in this case it is obviously about money, as in education costs) will become politically active.  If you want political activism resulting in violence, then go ahead, protect people so that they don't know what happens and by the time they even understand it, it's when everything is fucked.</p><p>From my perspective, as usual, the government is together with the corporations, they are working together to screw the middle class people and to take everyone's money.  Everyone's.  This is not about party affiliations, this is about governments printing money, ensuring huge monopolies by creating idea of preferred corporations, who get deals on money.  Banks, traders, mutual funds, construction companies, manufacturers like weapons firms etc, energy firms, those who know that they must lobby the government to remain powerful and rich, they create a situation, which mixed with the fact that the news agencies also are now corporations ran by the same people, take over the entire system.  The government is absolutely 100\% corrupt and cannot be redeemed. Almost every individual in the government is corrupt to some degree, but in the totality, the system is completely corrupt and it will cause destruction of currencies, not just the US dollar, some others as well.</p><p>I am not blaming unions for this, they are just part of the entitlement problem, but they are not the cause.  However unions should not be allowed anywhere near government jobs.  What the hell is it, that allows government to be a monopoly on laws and regulations and timelines but at the same time allows government to strike so that people who pay taxes cannot even get the services they paid for by the taxes.  Why should government have ability to prevent reduction in costs by enforcing artificial structures that prevent these reductions?</p><p>At this point though, these questions are irrelevant.  The government has failed and in some not very long amount of time the people will be left with a failed country.  The rich have already done the transfer of their wealth abroad, they already have the corporations, the bank accounts, the physical gold and other commodities, enough to live through currency and state collapse, they will be fine.  The poor, (the middle class I mean, they are the poor), will not be able to stop this, most of them will not even know what hit them when it hits.  Right now it is the rising unemployment, but wait a bit, it will be the devalued money, the impossible un-payable debt, the worthless property in places that have no production left.</p><p>This is what happens when you just provide them with bread and circuses and insulate them from reality for just enough time so that the cunning masters take everything away by devaluing the currency and making sure that they are again, the only ones with real wealth left.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>As a student of public administration , someone who lived through unionized state employment , and someone who tries to ensure the taxpayers are insulated from rising costs , I understand the desire for change to increase productivity and decrease time but the costs involved ( human and otherwise ) are much bigger than you 'll ever care to think about .
- I would say that you should be one of the last people who we should listen to then , when it comes to such advices.You are saying you want to ensure that the taxpayers are insulated from rising costs , and I say you do them no favor .
First , by insulating anyone from reality , you are creating a false sense of stability in a system that is really not stable and any change to status quo will be much more violent an dramatic than if the change was gradual and somewhat constant .
Second , by insulating anyone from reality , you are hiding the problems in the system .
If people were not insulating from the rising costs , they would pay more attention to what is happening around them politically.My point is valid , look at what just started happening at Berkeley [ google.com ] and some other universities .
People , when their money is at stake ( and in this case it is obviously about money , as in education costs ) will become politically active .
If you want political activism resulting in violence , then go ahead , protect people so that they do n't know what happens and by the time they even understand it , it 's when everything is fucked.From my perspective , as usual , the government is together with the corporations , they are working together to screw the middle class people and to take everyone 's money .
Everyone 's. This is not about party affiliations , this is about governments printing money , ensuring huge monopolies by creating idea of preferred corporations , who get deals on money .
Banks , traders , mutual funds , construction companies , manufacturers like weapons firms etc , energy firms , those who know that they must lobby the government to remain powerful and rich , they create a situation , which mixed with the fact that the news agencies also are now corporations ran by the same people , take over the entire system .
The government is absolutely 100 \ % corrupt and can not be redeemed .
Almost every individual in the government is corrupt to some degree , but in the totality , the system is completely corrupt and it will cause destruction of currencies , not just the US dollar , some others as well.I am not blaming unions for this , they are just part of the entitlement problem , but they are not the cause .
However unions should not be allowed anywhere near government jobs .
What the hell is it , that allows government to be a monopoly on laws and regulations and timelines but at the same time allows government to strike so that people who pay taxes can not even get the services they paid for by the taxes .
Why should government have ability to prevent reduction in costs by enforcing artificial structures that prevent these reductions ? At this point though , these questions are irrelevant .
The government has failed and in some not very long amount of time the people will be left with a failed country .
The rich have already done the transfer of their wealth abroad , they already have the corporations , the bank accounts , the physical gold and other commodities , enough to live through currency and state collapse , they will be fine .
The poor , ( the middle class I mean , they are the poor ) , will not be able to stop this , most of them will not even know what hit them when it hits .
Right now it is the rising unemployment , but wait a bit , it will be the devalued money , the impossible un-payable debt , the worthless property in places that have no production left.This is what happens when you just provide them with bread and circuses and insulate them from reality for just enough time so that the cunning masters take everything away by devaluing the currency and making sure that they are again , the only ones with real wealth left .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As a student of public administration, someone who lived through unionized state employment, and someone who tries to ensure the taxpayers are insulated from rising costs, I understand the desire for change to increase productivity and decrease time but the costs involved (human and otherwise) are much bigger than you'll ever care to think about.
-  I would say that you should be one of the last people who we should listen to then, when it comes to such advices.You are saying you want to ensure that the taxpayers are insulated from rising costs, and I say you do them no favor.
First, by insulating anyone from reality, you are creating a false sense of stability in a system that is really not stable and any change to status quo will be much more violent an dramatic than if the change was gradual and somewhat constant.
Second, by insulating anyone from reality, you are hiding the problems in the system.
If people were not insulating from the rising costs, they would pay more attention to what is happening around them politically.My point is valid, look at what just started happening at Berkeley [google.com] and some other universities.
People, when their money is at stake (and in this case it is obviously about money, as in education costs) will become politically active.
If you want political activism resulting in violence, then go ahead, protect people so that they don't know what happens and by the time they even understand it, it's when everything is fucked.From my perspective, as usual, the government is together with the corporations, they are working together to screw the middle class people and to take everyone's money.
Everyone's.  This is not about party affiliations, this is about governments printing money, ensuring huge monopolies by creating idea of preferred corporations, who get deals on money.
Banks, traders, mutual funds, construction companies, manufacturers like weapons firms etc, energy firms, those who know that they must lobby the government to remain powerful and rich, they create a situation, which mixed with the fact that the news agencies also are now corporations ran by the same people, take over the entire system.
The government is absolutely 100\% corrupt and cannot be redeemed.
Almost every individual in the government is corrupt to some degree, but in the totality, the system is completely corrupt and it will cause destruction of currencies, not just the US dollar, some others as well.I am not blaming unions for this, they are just part of the entitlement problem, but they are not the cause.
However unions should not be allowed anywhere near government jobs.
What the hell is it, that allows government to be a monopoly on laws and regulations and timelines but at the same time allows government to strike so that people who pay taxes cannot even get the services they paid for by the taxes.
Why should government have ability to prevent reduction in costs by enforcing artificial structures that prevent these reductions?At this point though, these questions are irrelevant.
The government has failed and in some not very long amount of time the people will be left with a failed country.
The rich have already done the transfer of their wealth abroad, they already have the corporations, the bank accounts, the physical gold and other commodities, enough to live through currency and state collapse, they will be fine.
The poor, (the middle class I mean, they are the poor), will not be able to stop this, most of them will not even know what hit them when it hits.
Right now it is the rising unemployment, but wait a bit, it will be the devalued money, the impossible un-payable debt, the worthless property in places that have no production left.This is what happens when you just provide them with bread and circuses and insulate them from reality for just enough time so that the cunning masters take everything away by devaluing the currency and making sure that they are again, the only ones with real wealth left.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1455212.31373062</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1455212.31375896</id>
	<title>Re:Possibly another reason</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267785180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Schwarzenegger said he was going to "blow up the boxes" of California's government. A few years down the line and we're facing another terrible budget crisis.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Schwarzenegger said he was going to " blow up the boxes " of California 's government .
A few years down the line and we 're facing another terrible budget crisis .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Schwarzenegger said he was going to "blow up the boxes" of California's government.
A few years down the line and we're facing another terrible budget crisis.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1455212.31373170</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1455212.31374080</id>
	<title>Re:Healthcare</title>
	<author>roman\_mir</author>
	<datestamp>1267819320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You have medicare for older people, right, those are people with more health problems.  That's government run insurance.  However good luck with your corrupt government running this 'efficiently'.  They had a surplus in your medicare but they spent it already and put into debt.  So the real problem with government is not efficiency or lack of it, it is the corruption, and it looks completely unstoppable and will take the country down.  You can do one thing only, organize and never again allow an establishment, or more precisely, a corporate sell-out whore politician in the office, but seriously, what are the chances of that?  You could go Chinese style and execute 90\% of your politicians who are complete corporate whores, the execute some corporate whore executives.  This will provide some incentive against corruption, but what are the chances of that happening?  You can try and create a perfect and incorruptible society with the aim at creating an incorruptible and honest and hardworking individual, well good luck with that.</p><p>I guess, maybe a robot run country, with the algorithm being Free Source and everyone is required to look and understand at least some of it during the education process.  I guess I can dream.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You have medicare for older people , right , those are people with more health problems .
That 's government run insurance .
However good luck with your corrupt government running this 'efficiently' .
They had a surplus in your medicare but they spent it already and put into debt .
So the real problem with government is not efficiency or lack of it , it is the corruption , and it looks completely unstoppable and will take the country down .
You can do one thing only , organize and never again allow an establishment , or more precisely , a corporate sell-out whore politician in the office , but seriously , what are the chances of that ?
You could go Chinese style and execute 90 \ % of your politicians who are complete corporate whores , the execute some corporate whore executives .
This will provide some incentive against corruption , but what are the chances of that happening ?
You can try and create a perfect and incorruptible society with the aim at creating an incorruptible and honest and hardworking individual , well good luck with that.I guess , maybe a robot run country , with the algorithm being Free Source and everyone is required to look and understand at least some of it during the education process .
I guess I can dream .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You have medicare for older people, right, those are people with more health problems.
That's government run insurance.
However good luck with your corrupt government running this 'efficiently'.
They had a surplus in your medicare but they spent it already and put into debt.
So the real problem with government is not efficiency or lack of it, it is the corruption, and it looks completely unstoppable and will take the country down.
You can do one thing only, organize and never again allow an establishment, or more precisely, a corporate sell-out whore politician in the office, but seriously, what are the chances of that?
You could go Chinese style and execute 90\% of your politicians who are complete corporate whores, the execute some corporate whore executives.
This will provide some incentive against corruption, but what are the chances of that happening?
You can try and create a perfect and incorruptible society with the aim at creating an incorruptible and honest and hardworking individual, well good luck with that.I guess, maybe a robot run country, with the algorithm being Free Source and everyone is required to look and understand at least some of it during the education process.
I guess I can dream.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1455212.31372896</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1455212.31373202</id>
	<title>You know, I've dealt with this kind of problem.</title>
	<author>hey!</author>
	<datestamp>1267815360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There are all kinds of ideological explanations for why this *must* be so, but I don't think they hold water.</p><p>My first management job was at a largish non-profit where I inherited a three year IT request backlog.  So I analyzed the backlog and discovered that most of it consisted of requests for software to speed moving decisions from what amounted to the user's in tray to the out tray, and pretty soon I realized all those in-out transformations formed a network.  I charted out the network, and it was *obvious* that certain key information latencies could be reduced from 35 days to about half a day by rerouting the information through this network.  In fact, most of the work in the network could be eliminated entirely, while providing better, But rather than spring this on people, I just laid out the charts and they figured everything out for themselves.  That way I didn't have to persuade anyone.</p><p>Now the interesting question was how this kind of situation could happen.  It's not because the people were stupid.  They weren't.  It wasn't because they were lazy or not dedicated.  Quite the contrary.  Lack of profit motive certainly played a part in the evolution of the problem, but it did not create the least barrier to addressing the problem.</p><p>What we had was two levels of people in the organization.  People down in the ranks who cared about the mission of the organization and understood their local piece of the process.  And people at the top who sometimes cared about the mission of the organization, but were mainly focused on shmoozing.   But nobody had any idea what the *whole* process looked like. So the people in the ranks were largely left to guide themselves in solving problems. They were self-starters, they had initiative, what they lacked was a global understanding of how everything fit together. So they talked to their neighbors in the existing process about where they were under pressure, then they demanded the higher ups provide them with tools to reduce the pressure <em>at individual points</em>. The higher ups had no idea how to fix these things, so they just stuck the requests onto the back of a three year queue, and when things began to catch fire they'd demand the queue get resorted.</p><p>But the queue shouldn't have existed at all.  When folks were done applying common sense to the big picture I provided, most of the dreaded request queue evaporated.  My backlog went forty months down to under thirty days, and I didn't have a lick of code written.</p><p>What was missing was *leadership*.  In my book leadership equals caring about the results plus understanding how the process works.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There are all kinds of ideological explanations for why this * must * be so , but I do n't think they hold water.My first management job was at a largish non-profit where I inherited a three year IT request backlog .
So I analyzed the backlog and discovered that most of it consisted of requests for software to speed moving decisions from what amounted to the user 's in tray to the out tray , and pretty soon I realized all those in-out transformations formed a network .
I charted out the network , and it was * obvious * that certain key information latencies could be reduced from 35 days to about half a day by rerouting the information through this network .
In fact , most of the work in the network could be eliminated entirely , while providing better , But rather than spring this on people , I just laid out the charts and they figured everything out for themselves .
That way I did n't have to persuade anyone.Now the interesting question was how this kind of situation could happen .
It 's not because the people were stupid .
They were n't .
It was n't because they were lazy or not dedicated .
Quite the contrary .
Lack of profit motive certainly played a part in the evolution of the problem , but it did not create the least barrier to addressing the problem.What we had was two levels of people in the organization .
People down in the ranks who cared about the mission of the organization and understood their local piece of the process .
And people at the top who sometimes cared about the mission of the organization , but were mainly focused on shmoozing .
But nobody had any idea what the * whole * process looked like .
So the people in the ranks were largely left to guide themselves in solving problems .
They were self-starters , they had initiative , what they lacked was a global understanding of how everything fit together .
So they talked to their neighbors in the existing process about where they were under pressure , then they demanded the higher ups provide them with tools to reduce the pressure at individual points .
The higher ups had no idea how to fix these things , so they just stuck the requests onto the back of a three year queue , and when things began to catch fire they 'd demand the queue get resorted.But the queue should n't have existed at all .
When folks were done applying common sense to the big picture I provided , most of the dreaded request queue evaporated .
My backlog went forty months down to under thirty days , and I did n't have a lick of code written.What was missing was * leadership * .
In my book leadership equals caring about the results plus understanding how the process works .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There are all kinds of ideological explanations for why this *must* be so, but I don't think they hold water.My first management job was at a largish non-profit where I inherited a three year IT request backlog.
So I analyzed the backlog and discovered that most of it consisted of requests for software to speed moving decisions from what amounted to the user's in tray to the out tray, and pretty soon I realized all those in-out transformations formed a network.
I charted out the network, and it was *obvious* that certain key information latencies could be reduced from 35 days to about half a day by rerouting the information through this network.
In fact, most of the work in the network could be eliminated entirely, while providing better, But rather than spring this on people, I just laid out the charts and they figured everything out for themselves.
That way I didn't have to persuade anyone.Now the interesting question was how this kind of situation could happen.
It's not because the people were stupid.
They weren't.
It wasn't because they were lazy or not dedicated.
Quite the contrary.
Lack of profit motive certainly played a part in the evolution of the problem, but it did not create the least barrier to addressing the problem.What we had was two levels of people in the organization.
People down in the ranks who cared about the mission of the organization and understood their local piece of the process.
And people at the top who sometimes cared about the mission of the organization, but were mainly focused on shmoozing.
But nobody had any idea what the *whole* process looked like.
So the people in the ranks were largely left to guide themselves in solving problems.
They were self-starters, they had initiative, what they lacked was a global understanding of how everything fit together.
So they talked to their neighbors in the existing process about where they were under pressure, then they demanded the higher ups provide them with tools to reduce the pressure at individual points.
The higher ups had no idea how to fix these things, so they just stuck the requests onto the back of a three year queue, and when things began to catch fire they'd demand the queue get resorted.But the queue shouldn't have existed at all.
When folks were done applying common sense to the big picture I provided, most of the dreaded request queue evaporated.
My backlog went forty months down to under thirty days, and I didn't have a lick of code written.What was missing was *leadership*.
In my book leadership equals caring about the results plus understanding how the process works.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1455212.31373166</id>
	<title>Re:Possibly another reason</title>
	<author>Korin43</author>
	<datestamp>1267815180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Just think about how it works. In a normal company, if you're inefficient, you make less money. The government never makes money, but if it loses more money, it can just raise taxes and hire more people (added benefit: "I created jobs").</htmltext>
<tokenext>Just think about how it works .
In a normal company , if you 're inefficient , you make less money .
The government never makes money , but if it loses more money , it can just raise taxes and hire more people ( added benefit : " I created jobs " ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just think about how it works.
In a normal company, if you're inefficient, you make less money.
The government never makes money, but if it loses more money, it can just raise taxes and hire more people (added benefit: "I created jobs").</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1455212.31372994</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1455212.31373652</id>
	<title>Re:Possibly another reason</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267817280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>One talking guy suggested that the reason government in the US is inefficient is because we expect it to be, and I think there is some truth to that</p></div><p>I've said this before many times on the interwebs - that the expectation of government failing ends up being a self-fulfilling prophecy. Who is this "talkin guy", and where can I get a hold of him? I want to scold him for stealing my talking points.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p><p><div class="quote"><p>When was the last time you ever heard a politician say, "government is inefficient, and here is how we can make it more efficient!"</p></div><p>I hear that sentiment from our president all the time.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>One talking guy suggested that the reason government in the US is inefficient is because we expect it to be , and I think there is some truth to thatI 've said this before many times on the interwebs - that the expectation of government failing ends up being a self-fulfilling prophecy .
Who is this " talkin guy " , and where can I get a hold of him ?
I want to scold him for stealing my talking points .
: ) When was the last time you ever heard a politician say , " government is inefficient , and here is how we can make it more efficient !
" I hear that sentiment from our president all the time .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>One talking guy suggested that the reason government in the US is inefficient is because we expect it to be, and I think there is some truth to thatI've said this before many times on the interwebs - that the expectation of government failing ends up being a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Who is this "talkin guy", and where can I get a hold of him?
I want to scold him for stealing my talking points.
:)When was the last time you ever heard a politician say, "government is inefficient, and here is how we can make it more efficient!
"I hear that sentiment from our president all the time.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1455212.31373170</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1455212.31373142</id>
	<title>Re:Healthcare</title>
	<author>Valdrax</author>
	<datestamp>1267815060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>We're all thinking it, so I'll say it: "Hey, let's let our government handle healthcare to increase effeciency"</p></div><p>A single-payer system would eliminate a LOT of inefficiency at the doctor's office level in handling all the differences in the way insurance companies require you to submit claims.</p><p>Also worth mentioning is the fact that processing claims faster than private sector healthcare companies is not a particularly high bar to raise in my experiences.  It's not like the government has anything like a lock on slow, inefficient, customer-hating bureaucracies.  The market doesn't really seem to do much to hold down healthcare costs or promote better customer care, if my limited pool of friends and family are any indicator.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>We 're all thinking it , so I 'll say it : " Hey , let 's let our government handle healthcare to increase effeciency " A single-payer system would eliminate a LOT of inefficiency at the doctor 's office level in handling all the differences in the way insurance companies require you to submit claims.Also worth mentioning is the fact that processing claims faster than private sector healthcare companies is not a particularly high bar to raise in my experiences .
It 's not like the government has anything like a lock on slow , inefficient , customer-hating bureaucracies .
The market does n't really seem to do much to hold down healthcare costs or promote better customer care , if my limited pool of friends and family are any indicator .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We're all thinking it, so I'll say it: "Hey, let's let our government handle healthcare to increase effeciency"A single-payer system would eliminate a LOT of inefficiency at the doctor's office level in handling all the differences in the way insurance companies require you to submit claims.Also worth mentioning is the fact that processing claims faster than private sector healthcare companies is not a particularly high bar to raise in my experiences.
It's not like the government has anything like a lock on slow, inefficient, customer-hating bureaucracies.
The market doesn't really seem to do much to hold down healthcare costs or promote better customer care, if my limited pool of friends and family are any indicator.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1455212.31372896</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1455212.31373342</id>
	<title>Re:Healthcare</title>
	<author>coaxial</author>
	<datestamp>1267816020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yeah, I don't want a faceless government bureaucrat to get in between me and my doctor.  That's what private sector bean counting bureaucrats are for!</p><p>Unfortunately for you, the facts about socialized medicine are in.  They're in from Canada, Europe, Asia, even right here in the USA with Hawaii ("<a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/17/health/policy/17hawaii.html" title="nytimes.com" rel="nofollow">This is a state where regular milk sells for $8 a gallon, gasoline costs $3.60 a gallon and the median price of a home in 2008 was $624,000 &mdash; the second-highest in the nation. Despite this, Hawaii&rsquo;s health insurance premiums are nearly tied with North Dakota for the lowest in the country, and Medicare costs per beneficiary are the nation&rsquo;s lowest.  Hawaii residents live longer than people in the rest of the country, recent surveys have shown, and the state&rsquo;s health care system may be one reason. In one example, Hawaii has the nation&rsquo;s highest incidence of breast cancer but the lowest death rate from the disease.</a> [nytimes.com]"), and the facts are that it costs less and improved access to healthcare improves the health of the population.</p><p>Meanwhile, the status quo has lead to us having the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Health\_care\_cost\_rise.PNG" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">highest spending in the world</a> [wikipedia.org], yet <a href="http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2010/01/healthcare-spending-and-life-expectancy.html" title="fivethirtyeight.com" rel="nofollow">getting nothing for it</a> [fivethirtyeight.com].</p><p>The current system is fundamentally broken and doesn't achieve it's social purpose.  Scrap it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah , I do n't want a faceless government bureaucrat to get in between me and my doctor .
That 's what private sector bean counting bureaucrats are for ! Unfortunately for you , the facts about socialized medicine are in .
They 're in from Canada , Europe , Asia , even right here in the USA with Hawaii ( " This is a state where regular milk sells for $ 8 a gallon , gasoline costs $ 3.60 a gallon and the median price of a home in 2008 was $ 624,000    the second-highest in the nation .
Despite this , Hawaii    s health insurance premiums are nearly tied with North Dakota for the lowest in the country , and Medicare costs per beneficiary are the nation    s lowest .
Hawaii residents live longer than people in the rest of the country , recent surveys have shown , and the state    s health care system may be one reason .
In one example , Hawaii has the nation    s highest incidence of breast cancer but the lowest death rate from the disease .
[ nytimes.com ] " ) , and the facts are that it costs less and improved access to healthcare improves the health of the population.Meanwhile , the status quo has lead to us having the highest spending in the world [ wikipedia.org ] , yet getting nothing for it [ fivethirtyeight.com ] .The current system is fundamentally broken and does n't achieve it 's social purpose .
Scrap it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah, I don't want a faceless government bureaucrat to get in between me and my doctor.
That's what private sector bean counting bureaucrats are for!Unfortunately for you, the facts about socialized medicine are in.
They're in from Canada, Europe, Asia, even right here in the USA with Hawaii ("This is a state where regular milk sells for $8 a gallon, gasoline costs $3.60 a gallon and the median price of a home in 2008 was $624,000 — the second-highest in the nation.
Despite this, Hawaii’s health insurance premiums are nearly tied with North Dakota for the lowest in the country, and Medicare costs per beneficiary are the nation’s lowest.
Hawaii residents live longer than people in the rest of the country, recent surveys have shown, and the state’s health care system may be one reason.
In one example, Hawaii has the nation’s highest incidence of breast cancer but the lowest death rate from the disease.
[nytimes.com]"), and the facts are that it costs less and improved access to healthcare improves the health of the population.Meanwhile, the status quo has lead to us having the highest spending in the world [wikipedia.org], yet getting nothing for it [fivethirtyeight.com].The current system is fundamentally broken and doesn't achieve it's social purpose.
Scrap it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1455212.31372896</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1455212.31377816</id>
	<title>Don't get me started about govt. inefficiencies!</title>
	<author>virtualXTC</author>
	<datestamp>1267800660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I tried to go to the RMV (DMV everywhere else) to get a duplicate license today, and there wasn't a single center within 30 miles of Boston that had less that 1 hr wait!  The Boston office it self had a 2.5 hr wait!!!  Moreover, when I got there I had some issues due to a 6 yr old fine that I didn't know about from NJ. For some f-ed up reason I can pay for the duplicate license with a credit card, but the fine had to be paid for in cash.  Not knowing I'd have to pay a fine I didn't have cash on me.  Here's were things get really F-ed:  At that point I'd been waiting for 1hr 40 min to get service (I took a bus to a branch outside Boston), during this time they had closed the gate to the office.  Just outside the office was an atm (100 ft away tops), but they wouldn't let me leave to get the cash and come back!!!  Now I get to waist another 3 hrs (1 hr in transit) to do it all again on Monday!!  Talk about inefficiencies!</htmltext>
<tokenext>I tried to go to the RMV ( DMV everywhere else ) to get a duplicate license today , and there was n't a single center within 30 miles of Boston that had less that 1 hr wait !
The Boston office it self had a 2.5 hr wait ! ! !
Moreover , when I got there I had some issues due to a 6 yr old fine that I did n't know about from NJ .
For some f-ed up reason I can pay for the duplicate license with a credit card , but the fine had to be paid for in cash .
Not knowing I 'd have to pay a fine I did n't have cash on me .
Here 's were things get really F-ed : At that point I 'd been waiting for 1hr 40 min to get service ( I took a bus to a branch outside Boston ) , during this time they had closed the gate to the office .
Just outside the office was an atm ( 100 ft away tops ) , but they would n't let me leave to get the cash and come back ! ! !
Now I get to waist another 3 hrs ( 1 hr in transit ) to do it all again on Monday ! !
Talk about inefficiencies !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I tried to go to the RMV (DMV everywhere else) to get a duplicate license today, and there wasn't a single center within 30 miles of Boston that had less that 1 hr wait!
The Boston office it self had a 2.5 hr wait!!!
Moreover, when I got there I had some issues due to a 6 yr old fine that I didn't know about from NJ.
For some f-ed up reason I can pay for the duplicate license with a credit card, but the fine had to be paid for in cash.
Not knowing I'd have to pay a fine I didn't have cash on me.
Here's were things get really F-ed:  At that point I'd been waiting for 1hr 40 min to get service (I took a bus to a branch outside Boston), during this time they had closed the gate to the office.
Just outside the office was an atm (100 ft away tops), but they wouldn't let me leave to get the cash and come back!!!
Now I get to waist another 3 hrs (1 hr in transit) to do it all again on Monday!!
Talk about inefficiencies!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1455212.31377502</id>
	<title>Re:Possibly another reason</title>
	<author>sjames</author>
	<datestamp>1267797600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Reason 5 might be because they are absolutely positively bound to buy from the lowest vendor that's willing to lie and check off all the bullet points, even if they're nearly certain the bid is a lie.</p><p>That's what happens when you take something that may be generally good advice and convert it into a rule that allows NO exceptions.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Reason 5 might be because they are absolutely positively bound to buy from the lowest vendor that 's willing to lie and check off all the bullet points , even if they 're nearly certain the bid is a lie.That 's what happens when you take something that may be generally good advice and convert it into a rule that allows NO exceptions .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Reason 5 might be because they are absolutely positively bound to buy from the lowest vendor that's willing to lie and check off all the bullet points, even if they're nearly certain the bid is a lie.That's what happens when you take something that may be generally good advice and convert it into a rule that allows NO exceptions.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1455212.31373062</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1455212.31379598</id>
	<title>I disgaree</title>
	<author>mahadiga</author>
	<datestamp>1267870320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think Government's primary responsibility is to 'create' jobs and not 'inefficiency'.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think Government 's primary responsibility is to 'create ' jobs and not 'inefficiency' .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think Government's primary responsibility is to 'create' jobs and not 'inefficiency'.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1455212.31373454</id>
	<title>Re:Possibly another reason</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267816440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>You would think the entity in charge of keeping things running would want them done quickly and accurate.</p></div><p>Large organizations don't have collective will. They consist of huge numbers of people, each with their own agenda. And it doesn't help when the organization reports to elected officials who need to bring home the pork in order to stay in office.</p><p>Bad as the current federal bureaucracy is, it actually used to be much worse. Before civil service rules (the same ones that make it so hard to fire people), government jobs were filled by "patronage" meaning that the politicos used them to reward their supporters. Up until the 60s, the chairman of the party that held the White House was always the Postmaster General, the Post Office being the single biggest source of patronage in the U.S. government. The PO was finally so badly run that they reconstituted it as the semi-autonomous Postal Service.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>You would think the entity in charge of keeping things running would want them done quickly and accurate.Large organizations do n't have collective will .
They consist of huge numbers of people , each with their own agenda .
And it does n't help when the organization reports to elected officials who need to bring home the pork in order to stay in office.Bad as the current federal bureaucracy is , it actually used to be much worse .
Before civil service rules ( the same ones that make it so hard to fire people ) , government jobs were filled by " patronage " meaning that the politicos used them to reward their supporters .
Up until the 60s , the chairman of the party that held the White House was always the Postmaster General , the Post Office being the single biggest source of patronage in the U.S. government. The PO was finally so badly run that they reconstituted it as the semi-autonomous Postal Service .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You would think the entity in charge of keeping things running would want them done quickly and accurate.Large organizations don't have collective will.
They consist of huge numbers of people, each with their own agenda.
And it doesn't help when the organization reports to elected officials who need to bring home the pork in order to stay in office.Bad as the current federal bureaucracy is, it actually used to be much worse.
Before civil service rules (the same ones that make it so hard to fire people), government jobs were filled by "patronage" meaning that the politicos used them to reward their supporters.
Up until the 60s, the chairman of the party that held the White House was always the Postmaster General, the Post Office being the single biggest source of patronage in the U.S. government. The PO was finally so badly run that they reconstituted it as the semi-autonomous Postal Service.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1455212.31372994</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1455212.31372922</id>
	<title>Inefficient Incentive</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267813980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In government, the more money you waste, the more money you get.  The incentive is to be inefficient.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In government , the more money you waste , the more money you get .
The incentive is to be inefficient .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In government, the more money you waste, the more money you get.
The incentive is to be inefficient.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1455212.31373948</id>
	<title>Re:Healthcare</title>
	<author>roman\_mir</author>
	<datestamp>1267818780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Obviously you haven't dealt with the private healthcare industry.</i> - I am dealing with the private health care industry in Germany, but without insurance.  It seems very efficient, convenient, has good doctors and provides immediate access.  There are private insurance companies here but also there is the public insurance system.  The hospitals are mostly private.  The system looks fine for now at least, well a million times better than Canadian I am too familiar with unfortunately, and much cheaper than that of the US.  A mix like that, private/public health care and private/public insurance seems a much better solution than the extremes of either all private or all government run.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Obviously you have n't dealt with the private healthcare industry .
- I am dealing with the private health care industry in Germany , but without insurance .
It seems very efficient , convenient , has good doctors and provides immediate access .
There are private insurance companies here but also there is the public insurance system .
The hospitals are mostly private .
The system looks fine for now at least , well a million times better than Canadian I am too familiar with unfortunately , and much cheaper than that of the US .
A mix like that , private/public health care and private/public insurance seems a much better solution than the extremes of either all private or all government run .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Obviously you haven't dealt with the private healthcare industry.
- I am dealing with the private health care industry in Germany, but without insurance.
It seems very efficient, convenient, has good doctors and provides immediate access.
There are private insurance companies here but also there is the public insurance system.
The hospitals are mostly private.
The system looks fine for now at least, well a million times better than Canadian I am too familiar with unfortunately, and much cheaper than that of the US.
A mix like that, private/public health care and private/public insurance seems a much better solution than the extremes of either all private or all government run.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1455212.31373116</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1455212.31373826</id>
	<title>Re:Healthcare</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267818060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>We're all thinking it, so I'll say it:  "Hey, let's let our government handle healthcare to increase effeciency"</p></div><p>In Ontario Canada, the overhead for the single-payer (government) health care system is about 7\%. In the US, the average overhead for the private HMOs is at least 25\% in most cases.</p><p>Most Swiss health insurance companies--private, but non-profit--run at about 4\% overhead.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>We 're all thinking it , so I 'll say it : " Hey , let 's let our government handle healthcare to increase effeciency " In Ontario Canada , the overhead for the single-payer ( government ) health care system is about 7 \ % .
In the US , the average overhead for the private HMOs is at least 25 \ % in most cases.Most Swiss health insurance companies--private , but non-profit--run at about 4 \ % overhead .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We're all thinking it, so I'll say it:  "Hey, let's let our government handle healthcare to increase effeciency"In Ontario Canada, the overhead for the single-payer (government) health care system is about 7\%.
In the US, the average overhead for the private HMOs is at least 25\% in most cases.Most Swiss health insurance companies--private, but non-profit--run at about 4\% overhead.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1455212.31372896</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_05_1455212_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1455212.31373506
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1455212.31373116
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1455212.31372896
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_05_1455212_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1455212.31375896
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1455212.31373170
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1455212.31372838
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_05_1455212_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1455212.31373174
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1455212.31372896
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_05_1455212_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1455212.31373164
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1455212.31372896
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_05_1455212_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1455212.31373454
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1455212.31372994
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1455212.31372838
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_05_1455212_51</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1455212.31374380
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1455212.31372998
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1455212.31372838
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_05_1455212_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1455212.31377184
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1455212.31373242
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1455212.31372896
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_05_1455212_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1455212.31375126
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1455212.31373170
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1455212.31372838
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_05_1455212_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1455212.31373948
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1455212.31373116
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1455212.31372896
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_05_1455212_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1455212.31373826
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1455212.31372896
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_05_1455212_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1455212.31374096
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1455212.31373166
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1455212.31372994
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1455212.31372838
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_05_1455212_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1455212.31375338
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1455212.31372994
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1455212.31372838
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_05_1455212_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1455212.31374156
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1455212.31373170
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1455212.31372838
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_05_1455212_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1455212.31374336
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1455212.31373116
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1455212.31372896
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_05_1455212_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1455212.31373718
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1455212.31373062
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1455212.31372838
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_05_1455212_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1455212.31374198
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1455212.31373062
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1455212.31372838
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_05_1455212_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1455212.31373282
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1455212.31372994
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1455212.31372838
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_05_1455212_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1455212.31373258
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1455212.31372896
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_05_1455212_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1455212.31373130
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1455212.31372896
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_05_1455212_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1455212.31380934
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1455212.31373612
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1455212.31372896
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_05_1455212_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1455212.31376132
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1455212.31373202
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_05_1455212_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1455212.31377502
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1455212.31373062
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1455212.31372838
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_05_1455212_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1455212.31374038
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1455212.31372896
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_05_1455212_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1455212.31376604
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1455212.31373062
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1455212.31372838
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_05_1455212_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1455212.31374488
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1455212.31373390
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1455212.31372896
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_05_1455212_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1455212.31373076
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1455212.31372838
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_05_1455212_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1455212.31376672
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1455212.31373786
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1455212.31373058
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_05_1455212_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1455212.31374080
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1455212.31372896
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_05_1455212_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1455212.31373568
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1455212.31373242
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1455212.31372896
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_05_1455212_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1455212.31373480
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1455212.31373118
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1455212.31372896
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_05_1455212_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1455212.31374188
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1455212.31373170
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1455212.31372838
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_05_1455212_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1455212.31374326
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1455212.31373202
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_05_1455212_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1455212.31374122
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1455212.31373170
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1455212.31372838
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_05_1455212_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1455212.31375642
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1455212.31373242
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1455212.31372896
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_05_1455212_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1455212.31375834
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1455212.31373202
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_05_1455212_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1455212.31373252
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1455212.31373142
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1455212.31372896
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_05_1455212_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1455212.31375436
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1455212.31373062
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1455212.31372838
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_05_1455212_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1455212.31373746
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1455212.31373296
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1455212.31373116
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1455212.31372896
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_05_1455212_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1455212.31374512
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1455212.31373396
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1455212.31373118
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1455212.31372896
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_05_1455212_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1455212.31373652
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1455212.31373170
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1455212.31372838
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_05_1455212_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1455212.31373830
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1455212.31373062
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1455212.31372838
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_05_1455212_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1455212.31373984
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1455212.31373420
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1455212.31372994
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1455212.31372838
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_05_1455212_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1455212.31375388
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1455212.31373170
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1455212.31372838
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_05_1455212_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1455212.31376094
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1455212.31372896
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_05_1455212_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1455212.31373890
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1455212.31373148
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1455212.31372994
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1455212.31372838
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_05_1455212_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1455212.31373804
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1455212.31373062
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1455212.31372838
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_05_1455212_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1455212.31373342
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1455212.31372896
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_05_1455212_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1455212.31375844
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1455212.31373242
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1455212.31372896
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_05_1455212_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1455212.31376974
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1455212.31373420
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1455212.31372994
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1455212.31372838
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_05_1455212_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1455212.31374164
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1455212.31373296
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1455212.31373116
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1455212.31372896
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_05_1455212_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1455212.31378648
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1455212.31374018
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1455212.31373142
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1455212.31372896
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_05_1455212_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1455212.31375454
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1455212.31373142
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1455212.31372896
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_05_1455212.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1455212.31373470
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_05_1455212.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1455212.31373104
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_05_1455212.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1455212.31373372
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_05_1455212.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1455212.31373202
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1455212.31376132
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1455212.31375834
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1455212.31374326
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_05_1455212.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1455212.31373058
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1455212.31373786
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1455212.31376672
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_05_1455212.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1455212.31372896
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1455212.31373174
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1455212.31373390
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1455212.31374488
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1455212.31373242
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1455212.31375642
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1455212.31375844
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1455212.31373568
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1455212.31377184
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1455212.31373164
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1455212.31373116
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1455212.31373948
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1455212.31373506
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1455212.31373296
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1455212.31374164
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1455212.31373746
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1455212.31374336
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1455212.31373130
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1455212.31373142
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1455212.31373252
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1455212.31374018
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1455212.31378648
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1455212.31375454
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1455212.31374038
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1455212.31374080
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1455212.31373258
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1455212.31373118
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1455212.31373396
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1455212.31374512
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1455212.31373480
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1455212.31373826
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1455212.31373612
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1455212.31380934
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1455212.31376094
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1455212.31373342
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_05_1455212.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1455212.31373196
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_05_1455212.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1455212.31372838
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1455212.31372994
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1455212.31373166
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1455212.31374096
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1455212.31373420
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1455212.31373984
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1455212.31376974
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1455212.31375338
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1455212.31373148
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1455212.31373890
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1455212.31373454
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1455212.31373282
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1455212.31372998
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1455212.31374380
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1455212.31373170
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1455212.31375388
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1455212.31375896
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1455212.31373652
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1455212.31375126
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1455212.31374188
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1455212.31374122
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1455212.31374156
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1455212.31373076
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1455212.31373062
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1455212.31377502
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1455212.31373830
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1455212.31375436
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1455212.31376604
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1455212.31373804
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1455212.31374198
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1455212.31373718
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_05_1455212.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1455212.31372906
</commentlist>
</conversation>
