health care
in [Golf]
|
From: William Clark on 25 Feb 2010 21:28 In article <MPG.25f0c60d3f7c8b85989c65(a)news.giganews.com>, BAR <screw(a)you.com> wrote: > In article <clark-E52FC8.17330925022010(a)charm.magnus.acs.ohio- > state.edu>, clark(a)nospam.matsceng.ohio-state.edu says... > > > > In article <MPG.25f0c2002c29cf9e989c63(a)news.giganews.com>, > > BAR <screw(a)you.com> wrote: > > > > > In article <clark-B0A746.09511025022010(a)charm.magnus.acs.ohio- > > > state.edu>, clark(a)nospam.matsceng.ohio-state.edu says... > > > > > > > > > > Hint: if you don't make them, no one will embarrass you in > > > > > > > > > > public. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Like posting to USENET at the turn from your iPhone? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Like lying about the "proof" that Dino "provided" of his > > > > > > > > materials > > > > > > > > science "publications"? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > All I did was make reference to terms. You as usual assumed facts > > > > > > > not > > > > > > > in > > > > > > > evidence. > > > > > > > > > > > > No, you claimed he had provided you with "proof", when he had not. > > > > > > Don't > > > > > > try to change the script after the fact. > > > > > > > > > > Billy, you are lying. I never said he had provided me with proof. > > > > > Check > > > > > the record and show me the posting. > > > > > > > > Ah, back to the old "you find the cite" tactic. It had to come out > > > > sooner or later. > > > > > > You are too funny, I suppose you want me to pass judgment on myself and > > > escort myself to jail too. > > > > > > Your allegation, you provide the evidence. > > > > No, you claimed he provided "proof", you back it up. > > You've changed from he provided proof to me to he provided proof. No, you claimed that he had given you "proof". Therefore, where it came from is irrelevant - the fact is that you claimed you had something you simply did not.
From: William Clark on 25 Feb 2010 21:30 In article <MPG.25f0bfbcd46ea426989c5f(a)news.giganews.com>, BAR <screw(a)you.com> wrote: > In article <d0af5a70-8176-4c4d-b74d- > ee5f35a12a5d(a)o3g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>, johnb505(a)gmail.com says... > > > > On Feb 25, 12:42�am, assimil...(a)borg.org wrote: > > > On 24-Feb-2010, Carbon <nob...(a)nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote: > > > > > > > >>>> So why do people keep bring up cost, if that isn't the objection? > > > > > > > >>> It is a red herring obviously. > > > > > > > >> Oh, of course. How can efficiency possibly matter? > > > > > > > > It does matter, but efficiency and gov't are opposites. > > > > > > > Really? Are you sure you're not being biased? > > > > > > BAR has related his gov't working experience, which matches my mother's: > > > waste, fraud, abuse and dead-weight employees. > > > > > > -- > > > bill-o > > > > It doesn't match my government experience at all. I saw no waste or > > fraud. I saw some employees who didn't carry their weight, but I've > > seen those in the private sector too. > > You pray at the alter of government. Er, sorry Bert, but that's "altar". Although in your case I think "alter" is a very Freudian slip.
From: assimilate on 26 Feb 2010 01:30 On 25-Feb-2010, "John B." <johnb505(a)gmail.com> wrote: > The government is answerable to the people. Insurance companies are > answerable to their stockholders. Profit is their No. 1 motivation. > They profit by taking money from you, giving as little of it as > possible to your doctor, and keeping the rest. You know next to nothing about economics and nothing about business. Companies are answerable to their customers. It is they who choose to pay for their products. W/o the customers money, which they are free to give to a competitor if said gives them sufficient reason (lower price, better claims service, etc), the stocker holders get bupkiss. -- bill-o
From: johnty on 26 Feb 2010 08:25 On 25 Feb, 05:42, assimil...(a)borg.org wrote: > > BAR has related his gov't working experience, which matches my mother's: > waste, fraud, abuse and dead-weight employees. > You are not alone in the world on this...
From: BAR on 26 Feb 2010 08:32
In article <wclark2-89ECDC.21285825022010(a)charm.magnus.acs.ohio- state.edu>, wclark2(a)colnospamumbus.rr.com says... > > In article <MPG.25f0c60d3f7c8b85989c65(a)news.giganews.com>, > BAR <screw(a)you.com> wrote: > > > In article <clark-E52FC8.17330925022010(a)charm.magnus.acs.ohio- > > state.edu>, clark(a)nospam.matsceng.ohio-state.edu says... > > > > > > In article <MPG.25f0c2002c29cf9e989c63(a)news.giganews.com>, > > > BAR <screw(a)you.com> wrote: > > > > > > > In article <clark-B0A746.09511025022010(a)charm.magnus.acs.ohio- > > > > state.edu>, clark(a)nospam.matsceng.ohio-state.edu says... > > > > > > > > > > > Hint: if you don't make them, no one will embarrass you in > > > > > > > > > > > public. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Like posting to USENET at the turn from your iPhone? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Like lying about the "proof" that Dino "provided" of his > > > > > > > > > materials > > > > > > > > > science "publications"? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > All I did was make reference to terms. You as usual assumed facts > > > > > > > > not > > > > > > > > in > > > > > > > > evidence. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > No, you claimed he had provided you with "proof", when he had not. > > > > > > > Don't > > > > > > > try to change the script after the fact. > > > > > > > > > > > > Billy, you are lying. I never said he had provided me with proof. > > > > > > Check > > > > > > the record and show me the posting. > > > > > > > > > > Ah, back to the old "you find the cite" tactic. It had to come out > > > > > sooner or later. > > > > > > > > You are too funny, I suppose you want me to pass judgment on myself and > > > > escort myself to jail too. > > > > > > > > Your allegation, you provide the evidence. > > > > > > No, you claimed he provided "proof", you back it up. > > > > You've changed from he provided proof to me to he provided proof. > > No, you claimed that he had given you "proof". Therefore, where it came > from is irrelevant - the fact is that you claimed you had something you > simply did not. Time to put up or shut up Billy. I never said that he had given me proof. If you believe I did then it is incumbent upon you to provide the evidence. |