Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: Don Bowey on 17 Nov 2006 12:16 On 11/17/06 5:05 AM, in article fsi7h.4258$yE6.994(a)newssvr14.news.prodigy.com, "lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net" <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: > > "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message > news:455D9A58.7FA6D54F(a)hotmail.com... >> >> >> JoeBloe wrote: >> >>> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> Gave us: >>>> lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net wrote: >>>>> "Don Bowey" <dbowey(a)comcast.net> wrote in message >>>>> >>>>>> As I recall, the pollution controls began being enforced about 1970. >>>>>> By >>>>>> the end of the decade the air was much cleaner. >>>>> >>>>> And not coincidentally, since US sales accounted for the majority of >>>>> MG >>>>> sales, they went under essentially at the end of the decade of the >>>>> 70s. >>>> >>>> Eh ? >>> >>> Austin-Healey, right? No, they didn't go under. >> >> They just stopped making them. >> >> >>> The word for today is : >>> >>> * * * S P R I D G E T * * * >> >> Eh ? >> >> Actually I was talking about MG and they didn't go down until a couple of >> years >> ago. >> >> http://www.mg-rover.com/static/index.html > > > They closed up shop in Abingon, sold off all the tools to aftermarket > manufacturers, and didn't resurface until the F was introduced in 1995. For > all intents and purposes, the marque went under. Not BL, but the MG > "division" (if it was called such). Actually, I don't think the > reincarnation is dead--I've seen reference to re-re-introducing the F in > 2007. We'll see. > > Eric Lucas > > Eric Lucas > > They also sold bricks that were part of the MG structures.
From: Don Bowey on 17 Nov 2006 12:54 On 11/17/06 2:00 AM, in article susql21c3s3edj687bkq220q8alrlm7ns9(a)4ax.com, "Jonathan Kirwan" <jkirwan(a)easystreet.com> wrote: (snip) > > In my area here, most dentists (well, that situation _is_ changing as > some dentists opt for Kaiser or large corporate service providers like > Willamette Dental, for example) are in private practice. While some > of them can and do make a whole lot of money (I overheard the CPA of > one saying he'd made 4.5 million 'the last year') and may have a staff > of some modest size, the insurance companies are a lot bigger and a > lot more profitable -- we're talking billions of real dollars and not > mere nickels, by comparison. I have no fear at all that insurance > companies are "behind the dentist 8-ball" on any score at all. It's a > game, if both sides play it as hard as I'm sure they do, that the > insurance companies are way out ahead in winning. > > However, there is a 3rd party, which is the consuming public. With > the really big boys playing (insurance companies) against the somewhat > smaller boys (the dentists in private practice and the dental > associations), the really insignificant ants that are getting stomped > on are the rest of us who are dust by comparison and are only needed > at all as justification for the cash flows the other two are fighting > over. > > We lose. > > The way we do medical and dental insurance in the US is an unmitigated > disaster and it is sucking the strength of this country dry for the > profits of a few. We are bent over and on our knees already under the > weight of it. The system is going to topple of its own weight because > the rest of us just can't carry the burden much longer. The government sure isn't helping anyone. Unfortunately, Prez. Bush's screw-the-people organization got the age discrimination laws changed so they could, indeed, discriminate against older people. Having done that, they permitted businesses the renege on their medical care coverage obligations to their retired people, forcing retirees onto Medicare. So now, medical care that was a business financial responsibility, is now a burden on the Public. The medical benefit was *not* a gift to it's retirees, as some would have everyone believe, but was bargained for in lieu of higher wages. It was a LEGAL obligation to the people who had been in their employ. Many businesses under-funded their pension and benefit plans, so they certainly supported the law change. Other businesses responsibly did fully fund their obligation, and Bush made it possible for them to pocket the funds. Guess which way They swung. Don (snip) > > Jon
From: unsettled on 17 Nov 2006 13:23 Don Bowey wrote: > On 11/17/06 4:58 AM, in article > ejkblm$8qk_012(a)s922.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com, "jmfbahciv(a)aol.com" > <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote: > > >>In article <455C8889.E558C69B(a)hotmail.com>, >> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> >>> >>>jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >>> >>> >>>> "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>>How many referrals do you think the person should be allowed? >>>> >>>>At the moment, I'd like to limit the number of referrals a _doctor_ >>>>can make. Dad's on his 6th or 7th referral. And the basic stuff >>>>hasn't been done yet. They're playing the Medicare system to its >>>>max. >>> >>>You need an 'NHS'. >> >>He is on the US' NHS called Medicare. Diagnosis of an ill old >>person now takes lots of referrals and tests and stuff. > > > Your a complete, devious idiot, or you may be just a troll. > > *Regardless* of age, multiple referrals may be required. I'm an ill, old > (not really - just 70) Most of us age more gracefully than you have. snip
From: unsettled on 17 Nov 2006 13:30 Don Bowey wrote: > On 11/17/06 2:00 AM, in article susql21c3s3edj687bkq220q8alrlm7ns9(a)4ax.com, > "Jonathan Kirwan" <jkirwan(a)easystreet.com> wrote: > > (snip) > >>In my area here, most dentists (well, that situation _is_ changing as >>some dentists opt for Kaiser or large corporate service providers like >>Willamette Dental, for example) are in private practice. While some >>of them can and do make a whole lot of money (I overheard the CPA of >>one saying he'd made 4.5 million 'the last year') and may have a staff >>of some modest size, the insurance companies are a lot bigger and a >>lot more profitable -- we're talking billions of real dollars and not >>mere nickels, by comparison. I have no fear at all that insurance >>companies are "behind the dentist 8-ball" on any score at all. It's a >>game, if both sides play it as hard as I'm sure they do, that the >>insurance companies are way out ahead in winning. >> >>However, there is a 3rd party, which is the consuming public. With >>the really big boys playing (insurance companies) against the somewhat >>smaller boys (the dentists in private practice and the dental >>associations), the really insignificant ants that are getting stomped >>on are the rest of us who are dust by comparison and are only needed >>at all as justification for the cash flows the other two are fighting >>over. >> >>We lose. >> >>The way we do medical and dental insurance in the US is an unmitigated >>disaster and it is sucking the strength of this country dry for the >>profits of a few. We are bent over and on our knees already under the >>weight of it. The system is going to topple of its own weight because >>the rest of us just can't carry the burden much longer. > > > The government sure isn't helping anyone. > > Unfortunately, Prez. Bush's screw-the-people organization got the age > discrimination laws changed so they could, indeed, discriminate against > older people. Having done that, they permitted businesses the renege on > their medical care coverage obligations to their retired people, forcing > retirees onto Medicare. So now, medical care that was a business financial > responsibility, is now a burden on the Public. The medical benefit was > *not* a gift to it's retirees, as some would have everyone believe, but was > bargained for in lieu of higher wages. It was a LEGAL obligation to the > people who had been in their employ. Many businesses under-funded their > pension and benefit plans, so they certainly supported the law change. > Other businesses responsibly did fully fund their obligation, and Bush made > it possible for them to pocket the funds. Guess which way They swung. > Anyone who bargains away curent wages in exchange for unenforcable (read "not in their control") promises of future services was a fool from the moment they hired on in such conditions. Don't blame Bush for this one. It was easily predictable and *had* to happen. I've been acused of being paranoid over such matters, but look at your results. I'll live with the accusation and smile all the way to the bank.
From: Don Bowey on 17 Nov 2006 13:34
On 11/17/06 10:23 AM, in article a4151$455dfe07$4fe7457$3928(a)DIALUPUSA.NET, "unsettled" <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: > Don Bowey wrote: >> On 11/17/06 4:58 AM, in article >> ejkblm$8qk_012(a)s922.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com, "jmfbahciv(a)aol.com" >> <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote: >> >> >>> In article <455C8889.E558C69B(a)hotmail.com>, >>> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>> "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> How many referrals do you think the person should be allowed? >>>>> >>>>> At the moment, I'd like to limit the number of referrals a _doctor_ >>>>> can make. Dad's on his 6th or 7th referral. And the basic stuff >>>>> hasn't been done yet. They're playing the Medicare system to its >>>>> max. >>>> >>>> You need an 'NHS'. >>> >>> He is on the US' NHS called Medicare. Diagnosis of an ill old >>> person now takes lots of referrals and tests and stuff. >> >> >> Your a complete, devious idiot, or you may be just a troll. >> >> *Regardless* of age, multiple referrals may be required. I'm an ill, old >> (not really - just 70) > > Most of us age more gracefully than you have. > > snip Don't see how. I'm as graceful as they get. |