Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: unsettled on 17 Nov 2006 13:47 Don Bowey wrote: > 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. No arrogance left for the rest of your family.....
From: Don Bowey on 17 Nov 2006 13:51 On 11/17/06 10:30 AM, in article a1751$455dffd6$4fe7457$4012(a)DIALUPUSA.NET, "unsettled" <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: > 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. Why did it have to happen? The plans should have been properly funded by business. Why should the government have "forgiven" that debt and thrust it on the public trough? It's fortunate there was no way for them to steal 401k plan money, and so far, my pension is safe. > > 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. In most businesses if one opted out of the medical plan, they did not receive more wages or salary, so there was no reason to opt out. Your situation was apparently unique. > I'm sure all bargaining now takes into account Medicare and portability of benefits. I do blame Bush and the administration's unwarranted give-aways to business. I'm pro-business, but not at the expense of reasonableness. How can you ignore his part in his administration's give-aways? Don
From: Don Bowey on 17 Nov 2006 14:53 On 11/17/06 10:47 AM, in article 8c061$455e03dc$4fe7457$4200(a)DIALUPUSA.NET, "unsettled" <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: > Don Bowey wrote: > >> 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. > > No arrogance left for the rest of your family..... > > > Hey turkey, you started it. I'm sorry if you aren't graceful, but it DOES take some practice. I swing dance, water ski, etc. What about you?
From: lucasea on 17 Nov 2006 15:19 "Don Bowey" <dbowey(a)comcast.net> wrote in message news:C1832D44.4D381%dbowey(a)comcast.net... > > Your a complete, devious idiot, or you may be just a troll. I've concluded the latter, at least a couple time, and now for good. *Nobody* could honestly be that obtuse. > I really think either you or your parent has a serious communication > problem. Noooooo... ya think??? Eric Lucas
From: lucasea on 17 Nov 2006 15:21
"Don Bowey" <dbowey(a)comcast.net> wrote in message news:C1832E32.4D383%dbowey(a)comcast.net... > On 11/17/06 5:03 AM, in article > ejkbuo$8qk_014(a)s922.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com, "jmfbahciv(a)aol.com" > <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote: > >> In article <455C9097.30011163(a)hotmail.com>, >> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> >>> jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >>> >>>> unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: >>>>> jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >>>>>> Ben Newsam <ben.newsam(a)ukonline.co.uk> wrote: >>>>>>> On Sun, 12 Nov 06 12:40:15 GMT, jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >>>>>>>> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>>>>>> Why are the same medicines more expensive in the USA ? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> We pay the development costs. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> What about drugs from Roche or Clin-Midy and so on? >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Sigh! We pay the development costs. If Roche didn't include >>>>>> theirs in US prices, they'ld sell a lot more drugs. >>>>> >>>>> What's not discussed in this thread is the fact that >>>>> the manufacturers have been advertising on US TV for >>>>> some time now that if you can't afford the medicines >>>>> you need you should contact them because they have >>>>> programs to assist those living in poverty needing >>>>> their products. >>>> >>>> Those have existed all along. It does seem odd that >>>> the drug companies are started to adverstise these on >>>> TV when the Drug Medicare Bill became law. >>> >>> I find the idea of advertsising prescription drugs to the general public >> rather >>> bizarre. >> >> How would a person find out about drugs? The naming is bad >> enough. Trying to find out all the side effects, efficacies, >> etc. is very diffitult to do. The existence of the net is helping. >> >> /BAH > > Finding the side effects of every drug is SO SIMPLE anyone with a computer > could do it. She can't do the www--yet another of her self-imposed problems. > Further, in the US most pharmacies provide a sheet of such > info with each prescription drug they provide. It's part of the job of the pharmacist to know these things. That's a major part of the reason that pharmacists require (at least) a full 4-year college degree, plus pharmacy school. Eric Lucas |