Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Technology Stocks : Intel Corporation (INTC) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Saturn V who wrote (179495)	9/28/2004 7:09:01 PM
From: greg s	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 186894

re: That means any test in your medical history for "any condition" , will be used as an excuse for a "pre existing condition exclusion" even thought that test might be negative. Ain't that the truth! Been there (with the negative results), Done that (with the exclusion BS). greg.

To: Saturn V who wrote (179495)	9/28/2004 7:26:19 PM
From: Proud_Infidel	Respond to of 186894

Analyst's Couch: Intel's forecast cut in '04, '05 By Mark LaPedus Silicon Strategies 09/28/2004, 6:45 PM ET SAN JOSE, Calif. — A projected decline in worldwide microprocessor shipments has prompted a market research firm on Tuesday (Sept. 28) to reduce its estimates for Intel Corp. in 2004 and 2005. In a report, Princeton Tech Research reduced its forecast for worldwide microprocessor shipments from 215.9 million units in 2004, to 205 million units in 2004, down 4.2 percent over 2003. In 2005, the firm lowered its shipment forecast by 12 percent from 239 million units to 210.3 million units. The forecast impacts suppliers of microprocessors, especially Intel. "The key change to our forecast [for Intel] was reducing our outlook for microprocessor unit shipments and ASPs due to the inventory correction now underway in the industry," said Paul Leming, chief financial analyst with Princeton Tech Research. The ongoing inventory correction in the chip market prompted Priceton Tech Research to reduce its forecasts for the IC sector for the second time in recent weeks (see Sept. 22 story). Priceton Tech Research also lowered its estimates for Intel. The firm projects that Intel will earn $1.08 per share on sales of $33.262 billion in 2004, down from $1.09 on sales of $33.348 billion in its previous forecast. The consensus estimate for Intel is $1.11 per share on sales of $33.733 billion. The firm also predicts that Intel could hit the wall and will earn $0.82 on sales of $31.054 billion in 2005, down from $1.12 on sales of $33.800 billion in its previous forecast. The consensus estimate is $1.18 on sales of $36.010 billion. Disappointing chip demand, coupled by an inability to stimulate the market with price cuts, caused Intel to recently reduce its quarterly estimates. Intel expects third-quarter revenue to fall between $8.3 billion and $8.6 billion, lower than the previous guidance for revenue from $8.6 billion to $9.2 billion. Worldwide demand for processor products is below previous expectations driven by lower than expected end demand, along with customer reductions in component inventory levels, according to Intel. Communications revenue is weaker than anticipated primarily due to lower than expected growth in flash memory shipments (see Sept. 2 story).

To: Saturn V who wrote (179495)	9/29/2004 2:12:26 AM
From: Amy J	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 186894

Saturn, RE: "I think that the Health Insurance is a mess" Yes, agreed. And the prices for an identical procedure should be the same for everyone. RE: "it must because of a conspiracy of gender discrimination." Gender discrimination isn't a conspiracy, but an issue of education and awareness. Medical gender discrimination exists - for both women and men, whether it's post-partum depression for women, or maybe when diabetic men are given a one hour pregnancy diabetes test when maybe they should be given the more thorough two hour test since male diabetes isn't a temporary type. It's quite natural a lot of this medical gender discrimination will begin to bear the light of solutions as the medical research community releases more studies. In today's more modern times, I think most view it as a matter of educational awareness and realize the constructiveness in discussing it openly. Denial doesn't create constructive solutions, but open dialogue combined with trust, do create effective change. For men and women to speak up about their medical gender specific issues to the betterment of society, they need an environment where their information is openly welcomed. RE: "plenty of insurance horror stories even with men, even though men tend to be macho, and do not vent their frustrations with the system." Passiveness doesn't create solutions. RE: "An individual buying insurance on the open market is going to get a terrible deal with dozens of exclusions based upon the medical history." Consumer laws should be enacted to make it permissible for people to get insurance. RE: "But individual health insurance policies are riddled with exclusions for "pre existing conditions"...even thought that test might be negative. How strange. Never heard of that one. How long do exclusions last? Forever or for a short period of time? RE: "The medical profession has also been guilty of being blind to women's heart disease symptoms. However this occurred not because of gender bias, but because of gender neutrality." The medical community has been aware of this gender bias since the early 80s. RE: "The medical profession assumed that since the heart did not have any connection with the reproductive and sexual organs, heart disease would be identical in males and females" This is not accurate. Cardiologists were most certainly aware there were issues and differences, but they were not given the needed gender research studies, due to gender bias in the University research world. RE: "since men provided the largest sample of heart disease victims" Untrue. The #1 killer for women is heart attacks. It kills 10Xs more women than breast cancer. My brother who is a cardiologist has always had many female patients, going way back. RE: "it was natural to base medical treatments based upon the the huge empirical evidence based upon men"" It's not natural, it's biased research. It may be unintentionally biased. RE: "Only in the last decade heart disease amongst women has been recognized as a big health risk and has been studied better. It has finally been noted that when it comes to the heart, men and women are indeed different." It's thoroughly disgusting it took them 30 years of biased gender research before they released the symptoms for women, especially when one considers the number of women who have died due to this, especially when (good) doctors were clamoring for gender research 25 years ago, due to the differences they saw. The medical community knew, but there was resistence in the university research community for gender research. On a related note, cbsnews.com By the way, is your friend still excluded from obtaining a health plan, even though he has no pre-existing condition? Truly a sad story - Congress certainly doesn't represent the people when it comes to health care for the middle class or wealthy. After learning about your friend's story, it has really convinced me that companies should allow their employees to apply a cash-equivalent of what would be their employee insurance premiums to purchase an individual plan on the open market before they get old and sick, so they can always have health care insurance from a good provider. I actually emailed my corporate broker to have her consider this option for my company's employees, since it's open enrollment time, assuming she says it's legal. Why not give employees the option to get more permanently situated with a good insurance plan for life they can count on forever when they truly need it at some future point as they get older? You've convinced me this is the way to go, at least for me personally. Better to buy an individual plan on the open market, when you still can, before something bad happens that would prohibit obtaining medical coverage. Regards, Amy J