Health care - thanks for reading this +++ : -) +++
in [Golf]
|
From: Howard Brazee on 14 Sep 2009 20:47 On Mon, 14 Sep 2009 15:42:33 -0700 (PDT), Dinosaur_Sr <frostback2002(a)att.net> wrote: >The worst thing is to have had society waste a lot of money educating >and employing you and you have virtually nothing of note to show in >return I disagree. Many countries have kids testing and testing and testing to make sure they don't waste money teaching the kids who pass. Once you fail, you're done. In the U.S. we can keep trying as long as we want. It may be expensive, but we get a lot of successes from late bloomers. -- "In no part of the constitution is more wisdom to be found, than in the clause which confides the question of war or peace to the legislature, and not to the executive department." - James Madison
From: William Clark on 14 Sep 2009 22:01 In article <7h842uF2o3d44U1(a)mid.individual.net>, "MNMikeW" <MNMiikkew(a)aol.com> wrote: > "Carbon" <nobrac(a)nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message > news:4aaece25$0$23971$9a6e19ea(a)unlimited.newshosting.com... > > On Wed, 09 Sep 2009 08:32:26 -0400, William Clark wrote: > >> In article <qgsda59thh0t9c1nct8341gbc57bpsf97n(a)4ax.com>, Jack Hollis > >> <xsleeper(a)aol.com> wrote: > >> > >>> The major problem with US health care is the cost. It's similar to > >>> Cuban cigars. They're the best, no doubt about that, but are they > >>> really worth 3 or 4 times as much as a top quality Dominican? > >> > >> Actually the Cuban cigars are a good analogy to US health care. Cuban > >> cigars are the best, but they are kept unavailable to US citizens for > >> no good reason by a special interest group that wants the market for > >> itself. Just like insurance companies do for the public option in US > >> health care. > > > > An excellent analogy. The corporations which own the US healthcare > > system obviously want to keep prices as high as possible while > > minimizing expenditures. Prices are inflated to absurd levels, claims > > are denied whenever possible. A lot of money gets spread around for > > astroturf campaigns and the like. Large numbers of people will > > uncritically accept whatever they are told, so maybe big healthcare will > > get away with it again. Who knows? > > "Large numbers of people will uncritically accept whatever they are told," > > LOL! How else can you account for anyone thinking Palin was fit to be VP?
From: William Clark on 14 Sep 2009 22:02 In article <G9GdndNa2dCdSjPXnZ2dnUVZ_gJi4p2d(a)giganews.com>, BAR <Screw(a)You.Com> wrote: > William Clark wrote: > > In article <4LGdnQusqJFTyzXXnZ2dnUVZ_vKdnZ2d(a)giganews.com>, > > BAR <Screw(a)You.Com> wrote: > > > >> William Clark wrote: > >>> In article <l5uca5d39v9sqb069e2dkooaruvri6es2i(a)4ax.com>, > >>> Jack Hollis <xsleeper(a)aol.com> wrote: > >>> > >>>> On 08 Sep 2009 06:30:26 GMT, Carbon <nobrac(a)nospam.tampabay.rr.com> > >>>> wrote: > >>>> > >>>>>> His SAT and LSAT scores would be very interesting. You can get a > >>>>>> pretty good idea of IQ from both of those scores. I wonder why he > >>>>>> hasn't released them. > >>>>> For the same reason that he didn't release his birth certificate to > >>>>> those birther loons: there is no upside to pandering to retards. > >>>> Actually he did release his birth certificate. > >>> It is in the public records. He didn't have to "release" anything. > >> He did not release a copy of his original birth certificate that was > >> issued at the time of his birth. There is a difference. > > > > No there is not. Sorry, but at least I accept that this is all you have. > > Yes, there is a difference in the types of birth certificates that were > provided in 1961 and the ones provided now. I have more familiarity with > birth certificates issued in 1961 than you. Right, well too bad you got this one wrong. The only available certificate has been produced time and time again, but morons like you just can't stand a black man being President.
From: William Clark on 14 Sep 2009 22:05 In article <r2qna51scfc1gh9fo0a8i8jb3dditd5k57(a)4ax.com>, Jack Hollis <xsleeper(a)aol.com> wrote: > On Sat, 12 Sep 2009 08:52:53 -0400, BAR <Screw(a)You.Com> wrote: > > >Jack Hollis wrote: > >> On Fri, 11 Sep 2009 11:47:27 -0400, BAR <Screw(a)You.Com> wrote: > >> > >>> Wrong. Obama has not released a copy of his birth certificate that was > >>> issued at the time of his birth. McCain and Palin lost the election and > >>> are not the President or Vice-President. > >> > >> I'm not sure how it became public but records of the evaluation McCain > >> received after his release from the POW camp are known. His score, a > >> very superior 133. Not quite Mensa material, but close. > > > >McCain barely managed to graduate from the Naval Academy. McCain's class > >standing was 895 out of 899. And he still managed to get jets. It helps > >when your daddy is a 4 star admiral. > > > Academic performance is not always a good measure of intelligence. > There are lots of very bright people who fail miserably in school. > Conversely, if you have a really good memory, you can do well in > school despite the fact that you can't put two facts together to come > up with an original idea if your life depended on it. > > If there's one thing that the military does well, it's personnel > assessment. Having an influential father will open a lot of doors, > but the Navy's not going to let someone fly a jet fighter if he can't > handle the coursework necessary no matter who his dad is. McCain is > clearly smart enough to fly jets. Well he didn't fly them very well, did he? What was it, three or four that he crashed? Hmmm.
From: William Clark on 14 Sep 2009 22:05
In article <WOKdnSZC6oiviDHXnZ2dnUVZ_sGdnZ2d(a)giganews.com>, BAR <Screw(a)You.Com> wrote: > Carbon wrote: > > On Sat, 12 Sep 2009 08:52:53 -0400, BAR wrote: > >> McCain barely managed to graduate from the Naval Academy. McCain's > >> class standing was 895 out of 899. And he still managed to get jets. > >> It helps when your daddy is a 4 star admiral. > > > > Or a senator. > > As a senator you still have to get the votes. Whoosh. |