Emerging from the Den

I've been working on a project lately that involves some very sophisticated evaluation and extraction of data from JSON and XML web responses. Not that I wanted to; I'm a tester and my coding efforts have been mainly quality-oriented for several years.

Someone, though, had to write this code as it wasn't writing itself and I seem to have developed this inability to communicate abstract requirements to meet concrete needs to others. So I had to adopt a show-and-tell mentality and write the durn thing to prove it's worth.

It is (mostly) written using VS 2010 and C#. It's the sort of extensible utility that, if I were to show it, would garner a lot of oohs and aahs but I'm restrained from showing it as it's proprietary to my employer.

Hence the title of my post, "Emerging from the Den". Maybe I'm not the Lion in Winter any more. Maybe I can still eat lightning and crap thunder as a developer. Maybe...but I learned a few things:

• Mentally and on a whiteboard I can architect a service or app with the best of them. This is probably because I have 30 years in this business and also because I don't have to think about implementation at that level.
• My actual code likely sucks. I mean...it works but it's likely brittle. In my gut I know there are better ways to do a lot of what I have done. If I were focused as a developer it would be written better but as a tester forced to code I settle for "works within acceptability".
• There are still things we could do in old VFP that aren't easily done in C#. For example, I need to read a value from a serialized file and ensure I can cast to a member with the right type. For the life of me, I can't figure out how to cast when the value type in the incoming file is not known until runtime.

To summarize I guess I'm relieved that I can still mix it up with hardcore developers on content without being pretty in code. My falldowns are due to not being a developer day to day and knowing where my syntax is weak; my upsides are knowing abstractly what should work and doggedly pursuing it.

Long Time Away

Wow, it's been a weird several months.

The family and I are back in South Florida and I'm working for a fantastic employer and really enjoying my work for the first time in a while.

Now that things are settling down and as I get a better grasp on the extremely cool technologies I am working with I will try to post more.

Until then, have a great Holidays!

XSD, WCF, and The XSD Tool

I'll make this short. If you are creating serialized data (XML) using DataContracts there are five things you need to be aware of upfront if creating XSD files using the XSD tool against the CLR DLL:

• If your properties names are different than the DataMember names, the XSD will use the DataMember name while the XML will be using the property name. Solution: Keep the DataMember names the same as the property names.
• Also for DataMembers, use the Order attribute AT ALL TIMES. This gives you the flexibility of populating and ordering property logic as you wish but ensures that the output is always in the same order - which is critical since MS XSD validation does not support the xs:all attribute allowing any ordering of elements.
• If you are using private properties in the CLR class (I frequently use Count in my CollectionDataContracts for internal use) be aware that the XSD tool will think they will be serialized and dutifully put them into the XSD as expected elements.
• If you are serializing from an inherited class the XSD types must list all base class elements first and then all derived class elements. I got burned trying to be cute by mix-and-matching properties from both in a mixed order.
• Stay away from properties that are List(Of) base types, for example List(Of String). There appears to be no way to model this in an XSD. Create a class to store the string and convert the property to List(Of class).

If you haven't worked with XSD files this list will make little sense but read these tips right before going that route and it'll make a helluva lot of sense.

The Secular Religion

I can't claim that this is an original thought, but the interactions I have had with folks at all ends of the political spectrum have led me to believe that progressive ideology is a religion.

You can't reason with these folks without tantrums and attempts to shut you down. They yammer to each other about how evil and misguided people who disagree with them are and they feel morally justified in doing whatever they damn well see fit because they are convinced they know better.

If you disagree with them there's no dialog - they just try to kick you to the curb. They operate on faith in their principles and are unwilling to discuss common sense and logic .... hallmarks of a religion.

How else to explain the approach to the scientific viability of climate change? There's far, far less conclusive evidence for climate change than there is for evolution, which we still call a Theory. Yes, a hardcore progressive equates those that question climate change with Holocaust deniers. No logic explains that reaction - it's a religion.

It all reminds me of discussions I used to have with "born-again" folks while stationed in Arkansas. Their absolute, unshaking belief that their way was the only right way was disturbing to my old pragmatic self. A Jew who has tended to the poor his whole life? Going to Hell. A Buddhist that runs an orphanage? Going to Hell!

Not to overstate it or look like a wingnut, but folks like that worry me. When a group of folks are so sure of their positions as a matter of faith, they justify themselves doing some pretty horrific things because they effectively dehumanize the opposition.

You see this time and time again throughout history. The Inquisition: The Catholic Church justified the burning of Jews, torture, and all sorts of depredations because they had faith that they followed the way of the Lord and that justified anything.

Nazi Germany: Jews were not people, so camp authorities who were good family men and loved their children routinely tortured and gassed Jews and Gypsys.

There are some, some right-wing religious nuts who potentially qualify under my theory but most of the progressives in pwer certainly do. And what to do? They're indoctrinated.

And More...(Hahahaha)

Page 1432:

(4) CONTENTS OF ALTERNATIVE MEDICAL LIABILITY LAW.—The contents of an alternative liability law are in accordance with this paragraph if—
(A) the litigation alternatives contained in the law consist of certificate of merit, early
offer, or both; and
(B) the law does not limit attorneys’ fees or impose caps on damages.

You gotta be kidding me. We want tort reform, just don't limit fees or damages. Yeah. That'll work.

And Even More...

Page 326:

If you maintain a health savings account and had to withdraw from it due to non-medical reasons in the past, you were hit with a penalty tax of 10%. H.R. 3962 doubles that to 20%.

Page 337:

Never forget that the rich are evil bastards who should be soaked at every opportunity according to the Dems. Oh, and it's not a tax on $1,000,000 incomes as erroneously reported - it's a tax on incomes over $500,000 per individual.


‘‘SEC. 59C. SURCHARGE ON HIGH INCOME INDIVIDUALS.‘‘
(a) GENERAL RULE.—In the case of a taxpayer other than a corporation, there is hereby imposed (in addition to any other tax imposed by this subtitle) a tax equal
to 5.4 percent of so much of the modified adjusted gross income of the taxpayer as exceeds $1,000,000.
‘‘(b) TAXPAYERS NOT MAKING A JOINT RETURN—
In the case of any taxpayer other than a taxpayer making a joint return under section 6013 or a surviving spouse (as defined in section 2(a)), subsection (a) shall be applied
by substituting ‘$500,000’ for ‘$1,000,000’.

Page 339:

‘‘SEC. 4061. MEDICAL DEVICES. ‘‘
(a) IN GENERAL.—There is hereby imposed on the first taxable sale of any medical device a tax equal to 2.5 percent of the price for which so sold.

I'm having another WTF!!!! moment. How does this reduce the cost of healthcare. C'mon, liberals, show some intellect and challenge me on this one! This is completely non-sensical tome insofar as it relates to the supposed goals of this bill. So, Joe gets hit by a car on his way home. Joe loses his legs. Sucks to be Joe - he or his insurer now pay a tax on Joe's artificial limbs.

Page 386:

Payments by Medicare to nursing homes are reduced by 2%. Hmmmm....

-----------------------------------
I'm on page 451 which is mainly Medicare terminology. They could tell me pigs fly in this section in bureaucratese and I wouldn't know the difference to be honest. So I think I'll give it a rest tonight.

More on H.R. 3962

Page 297:

OK, here we see the 2.5% tax on adjusted gross income for folks who don't get health coverage. It applies to the individual or family if there are dependents. Interestingly, the tax penalty is tied to the average premium amount for a "qualified" plan insofar as it can't exceed it.

Here's what I don't get. So far in my reading I don't see anything that reduces the premiums we see today - on the contrary, as I pointed out in my last post there are ample reasons to believe that premiums will rise and the CBO is of the opinion that the "public option" pricing will not be any cheaper than private plans and may indeed be up to 25% more.

Soooo....a Hobson's choice. You either pay for a qualified plan or get nailed by a tax penalty that may or may not be less than the premiums but will be several hundred bucks for a family with an AGI of 40K or so.

So this doesn't provide a mechanism to get affordable healthcare for the disadvantaged, it mandates that all must get insurance regardless of the affordability or face a penalty.

And this is how we get the uninsured insured - ripping their arms off by mandating that they pay for a plan without (to be fair, so far in my reading) actually helping them do so.

Oh, and BTW, as I continue reading, this apparently sets up a whole new area of IRS administration since the proof of insurance is filed with the tax returns.

-------------
Still reading.....

Would Help If I Posted The Link

Here's the link to the House healthcare bill. Thanks to Tim Greve for providing it.

http://docs.house.gov/rules/health/111_ahcaa.pdf

Still reading between bouts of retching.

Dissecting the Healthcare Bill (H.R. 3962)

Having many years of consulting experience to the healthcare industry, I thought I'd study this bill and how it affects the healthcare market. Briefly:

Page 18,Line 23: Residency is a requirement for the high-risk pool but there is no exclusion of illegal residents.

Page 26 on lack of funds: the Secretary shall make such adjustments
as are necessary to eliminate such deficit, including
reducing benefits, increasing premiums, or estab
lishing waiting lists. Nope, no healthcare rationing here (sarcasm).

Page 32,Line 24: Hey,lookie here! Insurers must allow you to insure your children to age 26! WTF?

Page 50, Line 5: No more lifetime benefit limits. So reinsurers will have to buy more catastrophic risk as part of their excess layer package. That'll cost...who pays?

Page 52, Line 22: Hmmm...apparently, no annual limits either.

Page 63, Wellness Grants. Oh cool, the Government will provide preventative care grants to eligible employers. Here's the verbiage for the amount:

(i) the product of $150 and the number of employees of the employer for any plan year; and
(ii) $50,000 for the entire period of the grant.

Wow. That sure would encourage me as that equals about 0.7% of my plan costs paid by me and my employer.

--------------
There's more to read but I have to take a break for now. I'll post more later. What a nightmare.
--------------

Anyone have doubts that this is a government takeover?

Page 94:
(c) LIMITATION ON INDIVIDUAL HEALTH INSURANCE COVERAGE.—
(1) IN GENERAL.—Individual health insurance coverage that is not grandfathered health insurance coverage under subsection (a) may only be offered on or after the first day of
Y1 as an Exchange-participating health benefits plan.

You weasel-worded lying sacks of shit. Guess Congress thinks we can't read.

Page 102:

(c) PREMIUMS.—Nothing in this section shall be construed as preventing a qualified health benefits plan from increasing the premiums otherwise required for coverage
provided under this section consistent with standards established by the Commissioner based upon family size under section 213(a)(3).

Yeah, trim those costs.

Page 109:

(e) ABORTION COVERAGE PROHIBITED AS PART OF MINIMUM BENEFITS PACKAGE.—

Holy crap, a shred of honesty!

Page 131:

(a) IN GENERAL.—There is hereby established, as an independent agency in the executive branch of the Government, a Health Choices Administration

Yes, folks, we get a whole new agency with a bullshit name. They are eliminating choices, so why not include Choice in the name? Orwellian.

Page 150:

SEC. 262. RESTORING APPLICATION OF ANTITRUST LAWS TO HEALTH SECTOR INSURERS.

What constitutes anti-trust?? Insurance pricing is based on statistical science and one company's premium is likely to be very similar to another's given the same benefits package since actuarial tables are pretty standard. This is just the Dems pissing on another "Big".

-----------------
More later.
-----------------

Page 272:

Employers contributions are.....

(A) in case of individual coverage, not less than 72.5 percent of the applicable premium
(as defined in section 4980B(f)(4) of such Code, subject to paragraph (2)) of the lowest
cost plan offered by the employer that is a qualified health benefits plan (or is such
current employment-based health plan); and (B) in the case of family coverage which
includes coverage of such spouse and children, not less 65 percent of such applicable premium
of such lowest cost plan.

This is NUTS. Emplyers are already providing a benefit via reducing premiums via group coverage. This is nakedly to discourage employer-sponsored insurance.

Page 276:

Here's one of the more heinous parts:


SEC. 413. EMPLOYER CONTRIBUTIONS IN LIEU OF COVERAGE.
(a) IN GENERAL.—A contribution is made in accordance with this section with respect to an employee if such contribution is equal to an amount equal to 8 percent of
the average wages paid by the employer during the period of enrollment
(determined by taking into account all employees of the employer and in
such manner as the Commissioner provides, including rules providing for the
appropriate aggregation of related employers) but not to exceed the minimum
employer contribution described in section 412(b)(1)(A).
Any such contribution—
(1) shall be paid to the Health Choices Commissioner for deposit into the Health Insurance
Exchange Trust Fund; and
(2) shall not be applied against the premium of the employee under the Exchange-participating
health benefits plan in which the employee is enrolled.

Boil this down. You can opt out of your employee group plan which will become very expensive due to the provisions I detailed above by paying 8% of your employee wages. Right now, for an employee making $50,000 with a wife and 2 kids the premium is probably about $9,600 a year. Right now, it's a crapshoot who (employer or employee) is paying what but if you look at the previous provision the employer would be required to pay 65%, or $6,240. OTOH, the employer can forego an employer-sponsored healthcare plan and send 8%, or $4,000, to the Government. If you opt out you save $2000+ per employee per year and your employees are now in the Exchange and likely moving to the "public option". More lies about not taking over the healthcare market when the economics force otherwise.

-------------
Pause for reflection. I've read 1/6th of the bill so far and it's mainly a red herring for the crap the Dems claim that they wouldn't do, but they do it indirectly. Like killing private health plans.

Is it too much to ask for these fuckwads to come clean once in a while? Why lie, hide, and otherwise misdirect your intent if you're so sure it's right?

My liberal friends hate me because they claim I'm conservative. My conservative friends are upset because I'm libertarian. But what it all boils down to, for me, is the truth. Tell me the truth - I don't have to like it but it begins an honest debate. Lie to me, treat me dishonestly, and I'll never listen to you and I'll try to discredit you with the facts every chance I get. Today's absolute, no doubt liars are House Democrats. Somehow I doubt I'll get any factual rebuttals. Just your typical pod-people koolaid drinkers.