Health care - thanks for reading this +++ : -) +++
in [Golf]
|
From: Carbon on 15 Sep 2009 20:18 On Tue, 15 Sep 2009 11:18:05 -0500, MNMikeW wrote: > "Carbon" <nobrac(a)nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message > news:4aaedf56$0$23959$9a6e19ea(a)unlimited.newshosting.com... >> On Mon, 14 Sep 2009 19:05:48 -0500, MNMikeW 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! >> >> It's true. Why do you think propaganda works? > > Seems to have worked on you. At the risk of stating the obvious, if one is able to identify propaganda for what it is then one is less likely to be swayed by it.
From: Carbon on 15 Sep 2009 20:21 On Tue, 15 Sep 2009 15:16:15 +0000, Bobby Knight wrote: > On Tue, 15 Sep 2009 09:59:22 -0500, "The moderator" > <no_spam_(a)no_mail.com> wrote: >>"Carbon" <nobrac(a)nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message >>news:4aaedafa$0$23950$9a6e19ea(a)unlimited.newshosting.com... >>> On Mon, 14 Sep 2009 15:44:12 -0700, Dinosaur_Sr wrote: >>>> On Sep 13, 1:17 pm, Lloyd Parsons <lloydpars...(a)mac.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Yet for all that, they provide the care for less in overhead cost >>>>> than do the insurance companies. >>>> >>>> On what do you base that? All I see is govt squeezing primary care >>>> providers. I see no reduction in overhead..just reduction in >>>> allocation to the actual service. >>> >>> Of course the insurance companies do not have profit margins. Heaven >>> forbid they would take a big fat cut right off the top. And it's not >>> like the sea of documentation they require is a burden on every >>> medical practice in the country. Oh no. That would be totally >>> inconceivable. >> >>What is the profit margin of the major health insurance providers? >> > http://wonkroom.thinkprogress.org/2009/08/05/are-health-insurers-making- > too-much-money/ Good cite, Bobby.
From: Carbon on 15 Sep 2009 20:28 On Tue, 15 Sep 2009 19:56:51 -0400, BAR wrote: > Carbon wrote: >> On Tue, 15 Sep 2009 11:20:43 -0500, MNMikeW wrote: >>> "Carbon" <nobrac(a)nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message >>> news:4aaf1d3f$0$4971$9a6e19ea(a)unlimited.newshosting.com... >>>> On Mon, 14 Sep 2009 23:18:44 -0400, BAR wrote: >>>> >>>>> I don't think you want to go down the articulate path. Obama >>>>> doesn't go anywhere without his Tele-Prompter. When Obama speaks >>>>> extemporaneously he sounds like an idiot and makes GWB's verbal >>>>> miscues appear like normal stutters. >>>> >>>> Where are you true believers getting this garbage from anyway? >>> >>> Ummm, errrrr, ahhhhh. >> >> I thought so. >> >> You normally see this when he is being asked policy type questions, >> and he is clearly being careful with what he says. He is the >> President after all, and it is generally a bad idea to give too much >> away or to mislead people. The advantage is that he does emit high >> quality output, so you don't often see types trying to explain away >> various gaffes, as they had to do so often under Wubya. > > He is a stunantz. An idiot. In over his head. It is revealing that you are unable to see his obvious ability.
From: William Clark on 15 Sep 2009 20:39 In article <0K2dnc-9TujhuS3XnZ2dnUVZ_v2dnZ2d(a)giganews.com>, BAR <Screw(a)You.Com> wrote: > William Clark wrote: > > In article > > <8ab1e71e-c5e3-4eba-8275-6af4f35795dc(a)g6g2000vbr.googlegroups.com>, > > Dinosaur_Sr <frostback2002(a)att.net> wrote: > > > >> On Sep 15, 7:29 am, William Clark <cl...(a)nospam.matsceng.ohio- > >> state.edu> wrote: > >>> In article > >>> <5afd7a0e-d9ca-46bc-b4ea-8d0ad6086...(a)j19g2000vbp.googlegroups.com>, > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> Dinosaur Sr <frostback2...(a)att.net> wrote: > >>>> On Sep 14, 3:38 pm, William Clark <cl...(a)nospam.matsceng.ohio- > >>>> state.edu> wrote: > >>>>> In article > >>>>> <9a7c191f-1ea8-46fd-9ca1-340f53f8f...(a)k39g2000yqe.googlegroups.com>, > >>>>> Dinosaur Sr <frostback2...(a)att.net> wrote: > >>>>>> On Sep 8, 5:02 pm, William Clark <wcla...(a)colnospamumbus.rr.com> > >>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>>> Let's all pause for a moment while he adjusts that almighty chip on > >>>>>>> his > >>>>>>> shoulder. > >>>>>> What is truly absurd is your belief that I have some ship on my > >>>>>> shoulder here. If you have a problem with what just about everyone in > >>>>>> this business thinks of deadwood faculty...too bad for you. > >>>>>> In any event, I was just reporting what the guy said...if all you can > >>>>>> do with a masters degree is get a job that pays $60,000, it's not > >>>>>> really worth the effort. You have a chip on your shoulder on that, > >>>>>> tough for you! > >>>>> A "ship" on your shoulder? HMS Clavicle, perhaps? Holy smoke, no wonder > >>>>> you have a hard time functioning! This sounds like something from > >>>>> "Monty > >>>>> Python". > >>>>> But while we are on it, why don't you let us all in on your definition > >>>>> of "deadwood" faculty"? You seem to like to bandy the term around, so > >>>>> let's be more specific, please. > >>>>> over to you. > >>>> We all know what this is. Some loser who got tenure and thinks (s)he > >>>> has a guaranteed job, so they do basically nothing but the minimal > >>>> work. No grants or contracts of their own, and they expect to teach > >>>> some minimal number of hours. They produce nothing or next to nothing. > >>>> Often have had their lab space reduced or eliminated. They should be > >>>> fired for violating their contracts, as they are in violation by not > >>>> producing an acceptable level of research as required by those > >>>> contracts, but for some reason they are not. State universities are > >>>> loaded with them, as you know. There's a place you could save a lot of > >>>> money. Lots of very active very hungry young academics out there with > >>>> grants and contracts ready to take those jobs for 1/2 the salary, but > >>>> nope! > >>> Actually, I don't know that "state universities are loaded with them", > >>> at least, not here. Perhaps you have a list of such faculty at Ohio > >>> State that you would care to share with us? > >> Really? Lets see the list of grants and contracts, professor by > >> professor. The ones that have no grants or contracts where they are > >> the PI are the deadwood. > > > > We bring in about $600M per year in external funds to Ohio, that are > > then leveraged by 2-4 times per dollar. ou can find the details on the > > OSU web site. > > > > What does Mississippi College do in that regard? Something about glass > > houses and throwing stones comes to mind. > > Mississippi 9.7 vs Ohio 11.2 and like golf the lower the number the better. Excuse me? Perhaps you would care to explain what these numbers actually are? Average IQ/100, perhaps?
From: William Clark on 15 Sep 2009 20:45
In article <6_6dndsd6ou-gy3XnZ2dnUVZ_oRi4p2d(a)giganews.com>, BAR <Screw(a)You.Com> wrote: > William Clark wrote: > > In article <GfWdnaKYdMNymDLXnZ2dnUVZ_uOdnZ2d(a)giganews.com>, > > BAR <Screw(a)You.Com> wrote: > > > >> William Clark wrote: > >>> 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. > >> "The only available certificate has been produced." I can get one just > >> like Obama's too or I can get a copy of the true original certificate of > >> my birth. In fact I have certified copies of both. Funny thing is they > >> don't look the same. One is printed on funny colored paper and the other > >> is a negative image a record recored at the time of my birth. Hmmmm. > > > > Oh, just give it up and grow up. > > You know I'm right and you can't argue this one can you Billy? > > Maybe I'll put up copies of circa 1961 records of live births and > documents produced in the 1990's as certifications of live birth. No, I now you are DEAD wrong, and this is simply another cheap stunt to try to undermine the President by any despicable means you can find. Do you really think that the FBI and CIA never ran background checks before he became a Senator? If you do, then you are truly dumber than a rock. |