Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: unsettled on 22 Nov 2006 11:47 Lloyd Parker wrote: > In article <ek1equ$8ss_003(a)s853.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, > jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >>>Water after a natural disaster. Monopolies. There are many examples where >>>unbridled capitalism is just plain wrong. >>Have you considered that people should plan ahead? > Have you considered compassion? Caring (about more than money, that is)? Where necessary and it isn't part of a permanent scheme, sure. > AT&T once had a monopoly on phone service. Tell me how someone could damn > "plan ahead"! AT&T's former monopoly was licensed and regulated. They eventally voluntarily gave it up in order to be permitted to invest their profits in something unrelated to their primary business. And just in case you haven't been paying attention, the phoenix is arising out of its ashes. "In 2005, SBC Communications purchased AT&T, thus reuniting the venerable phone company with three of its spinoffs (SBC was comprised of Southwestern Bell, Pacific Telesis, and Ameritech). The merger was completed on November 18, 2005. The merged company is named AT&T Inc. Additionally, on March 5, 2006, AT&T announced that it will merge with BellSouth pending government regulatory approval. The surviving company will be named AT&T, and will be headquartered in San Antonio with Atlanta retaining the headquarters for Cingular Wireless, which will return to the AT&T Wireless name, as well as Southeast region telephone operations. If the merger is approved, it is assumed AT&T will not switch back to the Bell logo, thus ending usage of the Bell logo for corporate use by any of the Baby Bells. AT&T, from its days as SBC, already controlled 60 percent of Cingular Wireless, which had itself recently bought AT&T Wireless from the "old" AT&T. The other 40 percent is controlled by BellSouth, meaning the merger would unite the company under one corporate parent." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell_System_divestiture
From: unsettled on 22 Nov 2006 11:54 Lloyd Parker wrote: > In article <ek1fi2$8qk_002(a)s853.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, > jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >>This is >>the road to dictatorship and communism. > A commie under every bed. Wondered when the far right mantra would emerge. Funny thing, we have an almost meaningless piece of a curve describing the increase in CO2 in the atmosphere which is dubbed a second order polynomial predictive of ecological disaster, but that's PC and acceptable. A warning that nationalizing private industry is a step on the path to dictatorship and communism isn't PC so it is subject to ridicule. Lemmings.
From: Eeyore on 22 Nov 2006 11:57 jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > If a government run single-payer denies claims, there is > no other place to go You go to a 'private' physician. > because the providers of the service > will not "disobey" the government mandates. This is > the road to dictatorship and communism. You think that's what we have in the UK ? Graham
From: Eeyore on 22 Nov 2006 11:58 jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > lparker(a)emory.edu (Lloyd Parker) wrote: > > jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > > > >>>>What percentage do you think the government has to take? > >>> > >>>Medicare runs with about a 3% overhead rate. > >> > >>I don't believe this. That may be the Federal percentage. The > >>state percentage also has to be included. > > > >There is no state % for Medicare. You're thinking of Medicaid. > > No, I'm not. Who sends the money? Not the feds. The feds > send the money to the state who then disburses it. That is > two political levels of bureaucracy. An 'NHS' doesn't have these problems. Graham
From: Eeyore on 22 Nov 2006 12:00
jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > I hope he finds something that he would pay his > employer so he can do the work. You think ppl should pay for the 'privilege' of working now ? Graham |