Lloyd Parker wrote:

> In article <VM2Ab.159$ng6.2@twister.socal.rr.com>,
> "David J. Allen" <dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote:
> >
> >"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
> >news:bqq9eg$ikt$18@puck.cc.emory.edu...
> >> In article <dbhvsvs6ful4cghb4b4hf0bnd6554s5kgv@4ax.com>,
> >> Bill Funk <bfunk33@pipping.com> wrote:
> >> >On Thu, 04 Dec 03 10:09:39 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
> >> >wrote:
> >> >
> >> >>What does that mean? There are plenty of innovations. Airbus now is
> >> outdoing
> >> >>Boeing in orders, for example. Why? Innovative ideas.
> >> >
> >> >Sure.
> >> >Like Britain, France & Germany giving economic incentives (money) to
> >> >their airlines to buy Airbus.
> >>
> >> Not nowadays. WTO would slap that down.
> >>
> >> >That's on top of the economic incentives those governments gave to
> >> >Airbus (subsidies) to help Airbus products.
> >>
> >> They gave startup subsidies, all of which Airbus paid back, as it was
> >required
> >> to.
> >
> >
> >Now the "subsidies" come in the form of "loans". No, this battle is still
> >being waged.
>
> Airbus receives no state subsidies,

Boeing wouldn't exist if it hadn't been for state subsidies, and it continues to
get guaranteed low interest loans.

> but Boeing has a hugely profitable lease
> deal for tankers with the AF that Sen. McCain calls a rip-off of the
> taxpayers.
>
You're referring to the deal that Linda Daschle, wife of Thomas Daschle
(Democrat, South Dakota) has been lobbying hard for on behalf of Boeing. Oops!
You forgot to mention that part, I'm sure.

 

Lloyd Parker wrote:

> In article <VM2Ab.159$ng6.2@twister.socal.rr.com>,
> "David J. Allen" <dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote:
> >
> >"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
> >news:bqq9eg$ikt$18@puck.cc.emory.edu...
> >> In article <dbhvsvs6ful4cghb4b4hf0bnd6554s5kgv@4ax.com>,
> >> Bill Funk <bfunk33@pipping.com> wrote:
> >> >On Thu, 04 Dec 03 10:09:39 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
> >> >wrote:
> >> >
> >> >>What does that mean? There are plenty of innovations. Airbus now is
> >> outdoing
> >> >>Boeing in orders, for example. Why? Innovative ideas.
> >> >
> >> >Sure.
> >> >Like Britain, France & Germany giving economic incentives (money) to
> >> >their airlines to buy Airbus.
> >>
> >> Not nowadays. WTO would slap that down.
> >>
> >> >That's on top of the economic incentives those governments gave to
> >> >Airbus (subsidies) to help Airbus products.
> >>
> >> They gave startup subsidies, all of which Airbus paid back, as it was
> >required
> >> to.
> >
> >
> >Now the "subsidies" come in the form of "loans". No, this battle is still
> >being waged.
>
> Airbus receives no state subsidies,

Boeing wouldn't exist if it hadn't been for state subsidies, and it continues to
get guaranteed low interest loans.

> but Boeing has a hugely profitable lease
> deal for tankers with the AF that Sen. McCain calls a rip-off of the
> taxpayers.
>
You're referring to the deal that Linda Daschle, wife of Thomas Daschle
(Democrat, South Dakota) has been lobbying hard for on behalf of Boeing. Oops!
You forgot to mention that part, I'm sure.

 

Lloyd Parker wrote:

> In article <VM2Ab.159$ng6.2@twister.socal.rr.com>,
> "David J. Allen" <dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote:
> >
> >"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
> >news:bqq9eg$ikt$18@puck.cc.emory.edu...
> >> In article <dbhvsvs6ful4cghb4b4hf0bnd6554s5kgv@4ax.com>,
> >> Bill Funk <bfunk33@pipping.com> wrote:
> >> >On Thu, 04 Dec 03 10:09:39 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
> >> >wrote:
> >> >
> >> >>What does that mean? There are plenty of innovations. Airbus now is
> >> outdoing
> >> >>Boeing in orders, for example. Why? Innovative ideas.
> >> >
> >> >Sure.
> >> >Like Britain, France & Germany giving economic incentives (money) to
> >> >their airlines to buy Airbus.
> >>
> >> Not nowadays. WTO would slap that down.
> >>
> >> >That's on top of the economic incentives those governments gave to
> >> >Airbus (subsidies) to help Airbus products.
> >>
> >> They gave startup subsidies, all of which Airbus paid back, as it was
> >required
> >> to.
> >
> >
> >Now the "subsidies" come in the form of "loans". No, this battle is still
> >being waged.
>
> Airbus receives no state subsidies,

Boeing wouldn't exist if it hadn't been for state subsidies, and it continues to
get guaranteed low interest loans.

> but Boeing has a hugely profitable lease
> deal for tankers with the AF that Sen. McCain calls a rip-off of the
> taxpayers.
>
You're referring to the deal that Linda Daschle, wife of Thomas Daschle
(Democrat, South Dakota) has been lobbying hard for on behalf of Boeing. Oops!
You forgot to mention that part, I'm sure.

 

Lloyd Parker wrote:

> In article <7r2dnRPpSrp7ek2iRTvUqA@speakeasy.net>,
> russotto@grace.speakeasy.net (Matthew Russotto) wrote:
> >In article <e7359b94e95c7b42780a15f66a4b4f62@news.teranews.co m>,
> >Brandon Sommerville <grimrod@mindless.com.gov> wrote:
> >>On Fri, 05 Dec 2003 13:24:57 -0600, russotto@grace.speakeasy.net
> >>(Matthew Russotto) wrote:
> >>
> >>>In article <7dc396f584336d32b246a944411c15de@news.teranews.co m>,
> >>>Brandon Sommerville <grimrod@mindless.com.gov> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>I know that no matter what happens, if I blow out my knee I'm going to
> >>>>get an MRI. It may take 8 weeks, but I'll get it and it won't cost me
> >>>>anything extra. Can you say the same thing?
> >>>
> >>>Not exactly. In my case (hip rather than knee, but same idea), it was
> >>>same day (first MRI) and later in the week (second MRI) and it still
> >>>didn't cost me anything extra. There was no urgency in the medical
> >>>sense. The more complex MRA did take a month, because it had to be
> >>>scheduled with both the radiology department and the MRI center. No
> >>>rationing involved.
> >>
> >>And if there was no one who needed an MRI I'd get one right away as
> >>well.
> >
> >But in the US, we've got enough MRIs to service both the critical needs and
> >the less-critical needs in a timely manner.
>
> For those with insurance or plenty of money. Of course, that's one reason
> health care IS so expensive -- every hospital, every clinic, thinks they have
> to have every expensive machine, be capable of performing every expensive
> procedure. It's like Chrysler deciding they need to have the parts and
> engineers on hand to make every type of vehicle in the world, from sports car
> to military tank to NASA space shuttle. What would their overhead costs be?

Hospitals invest in the technology they need to meet the demand for services and
survive. But your claim is silly, hospitals often refer patients to other
hospitals with more specialized equipment and physicians, on emergency and
non-emergency basis all the time.

 

Lloyd Parker wrote:

> In article <7r2dnRPpSrp7ek2iRTvUqA@speakeasy.net>,
> russotto@grace.speakeasy.net (Matthew Russotto) wrote:
> >In article <e7359b94e95c7b42780a15f66a4b4f62@news.teranews.co m>,
> >Brandon Sommerville <grimrod@mindless.com.gov> wrote:
> >>On Fri, 05 Dec 2003 13:24:57 -0600, russotto@grace.speakeasy.net
> >>(Matthew Russotto) wrote:
> >>
> >>>In article <7dc396f584336d32b246a944411c15de@news.teranews.co m>,
> >>>Brandon Sommerville <grimrod@mindless.com.gov> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>I know that no matter what happens, if I blow out my knee I'm going to
> >>>>get an MRI. It may take 8 weeks, but I'll get it and it won't cost me
> >>>>anything extra. Can you say the same thing?
> >>>
> >>>Not exactly. In my case (hip rather than knee, but same idea), it was
> >>>same day (first MRI) and later in the week (second MRI) and it still
> >>>didn't cost me anything extra. There was no urgency in the medical
> >>>sense. The more complex MRA did take a month, because it had to be
> >>>scheduled with both the radiology department and the MRI center. No
> >>>rationing involved.
> >>
> >>And if there was no one who needed an MRI I'd get one right away as
> >>well.
> >
> >But in the US, we've got enough MRIs to service both the critical needs and
> >the less-critical needs in a timely manner.
>
> For those with insurance or plenty of money. Of course, that's one reason
> health care IS so expensive -- every hospital, every clinic, thinks they have
> to have every expensive machine, be capable of performing every expensive
> procedure. It's like Chrysler deciding they need to have the parts and
> engineers on hand to make every type of vehicle in the world, from sports car
> to military tank to NASA space shuttle. What would their overhead costs be?

Hospitals invest in the technology they need to meet the demand for services and
survive. But your claim is silly, hospitals often refer patients to other
hospitals with more specialized equipment and physicians, on emergency and
non-emergency basis all the time.

 

Lloyd Parker wrote:

> In article <7r2dnRPpSrp7ek2iRTvUqA@speakeasy.net>,
> russotto@grace.speakeasy.net (Matthew Russotto) wrote:
> >In article <e7359b94e95c7b42780a15f66a4b4f62@news.teranews.co m>,
> >Brandon Sommerville <grimrod@mindless.com.gov> wrote:
> >>On Fri, 05 Dec 2003 13:24:57 -0600, russotto@grace.speakeasy.net
> >>(Matthew Russotto) wrote:
> >>
> >>>In article <7dc396f584336d32b246a944411c15de@news.teranews.co m>,
> >>>Brandon Sommerville <grimrod@mindless.com.gov> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>I know that no matter what happens, if I blow out my knee I'm going to
> >>>>get an MRI. It may take 8 weeks, but I'll get it and it won't cost me
> >>>>anything extra. Can you say the same thing?
> >>>
> >>>Not exactly. In my case (hip rather than knee, but same idea), it was
> >>>same day (first MRI) and later in the week (second MRI) and it still
> >>>didn't cost me anything extra. There was no urgency in the medical
> >>>sense. The more complex MRA did take a month, because it had to be
> >>>scheduled with both the radiology department and the MRI center. No
> >>>rationing involved.
> >>
> >>And if there was no one who needed an MRI I'd get one right away as
> >>well.
> >
> >But in the US, we've got enough MRIs to service both the critical needs and
> >the less-critical needs in a timely manner.
>
> For those with insurance or plenty of money. Of course, that's one reason
> health care IS so expensive -- every hospital, every clinic, thinks they have
> to have every expensive machine, be capable of performing every expensive
> procedure. It's like Chrysler deciding they need to have the parts and
> engineers on hand to make every type of vehicle in the world, from sports car
> to military tank to NASA space shuttle. What would their overhead costs be?

Hospitals invest in the technology they need to meet the demand for services and
survive. But your claim is silly, hospitals often refer patients to other
hospitals with more specialized equipment and physicians, on emergency and
non-emergency basis all the time.

 

Bill Putney wrote:
>
> "C. E. White" wrote:
>
> > Lesbian couples can even have children.
>
> Technically, no. There has to be a real ----- involved somewhere.

I don't dispute that, but even in marriages sometimes the children
aren't necessarily of the expected parentage.

Ed

 

Bill Putney wrote:
>
> "C. E. White" wrote:
>
> > Lesbian couples can even have children.
>
> Technically, no. There has to be a real ----- involved somewhere.

I don't dispute that, but even in marriages sometimes the children
aren't necessarily of the expected parentage.

Ed

 

Bill Putney wrote:
>
> "C. E. White" wrote:
>
> > Lesbian couples can even have children.
>
> Technically, no. There has to be a real ----- involved somewhere.

I don't dispute that, but even in marriages sometimes the children
aren't necessarily of the expected parentage.

Ed

 

"Daniel J. Stern" wrote:
>
> On Fri, 5 Dec 2003, David J. Allen wrote:

> > ...I don't suppose Clarence Thomas would qualify as a civil rights
> > authority. Would he?
>
> Well, let's see. What are Coretta Scott King's qualifications as an
> authority on the civil rights struggle for blacks? Her credentials, her
> track record and experience and that of her late husband.
>
> What are Clarence Thomas' qualifications? The color of his skin...?

No - a conservative black person is automatically disqualified and is to
be figuratively castrated or lynched whenever possible. They don't
refer to them as the NAA*L*CP for no reason.

Bill Putney
(to reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
address with "x")


-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----