Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.sys.mac.system > #22507 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2012-03-19 07:26 -0700 |
| Last post | 2012-03-19 20:58 -0700 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 184 — 16 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.sys.mac.system
Apple to Pay Dividend, Plans $10 Billion Buyback Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2012-03-19 07:26 -0700
Re: Apple to Pay Dividend, Plans $10 Billion Buyback JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2012-03-19 15:14 -0400
Re: Apple to Pay Dividend, Plans $10 Billion Buyback JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2012-03-19 15:31 -0400
Re: Apple to Pay Dividend, Plans $10 Billion Buyback JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2012-03-19 15:51 -0400
Re: Apple to Pay Dividend, Plans $10 Billion Buyback JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2012-03-19 15:53 -0400
Re: Apple to Pay Dividend, Plans $10 Billion Buyback HelpfulHarry@BusyWorking.com (Helpful Harry) - 2012-03-20 12:19 +1200
Re: Apple to Pay Dividend, Plans $10 Billion Buyback Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2012-03-19 20:50 -0400
Re: Apple to Pay Dividend, Plans $10 Billion Buyback HelpfulHarry@BusyWorking.com (Helpful Harry) - 2012-03-20 16:14 +1200
Re: Apple to Pay Dividend, Plans $10 Billion Buyback JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2012-03-19 23:28 -0400
Re: Apple to Pay Dividend, Plans $10 Billion Buyback Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2012-03-20 17:16 -0400
Re: Apple to Pay Dividend, Plans $10 Billion Buyback Paul Sture <paul@sture.ch> - 2012-03-21 12:18 +0100
Re: Apple to Pay Dividend, Plans $10 Billion Buyback Paul Sture <paul@sture.ch> - 2012-03-20 12:24 +0100
Re: Apple to Pay Dividend, Plans $10 Billion Buyback George Kerby <ghost_topper@hotmail.com> - 2012-03-20 19:33 -0500
Re: Apple to Pay Dividend, Plans $10 Billion Buyback Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2012-03-20 17:50 -0700
Re: Apple to Pay Dividend, Plans $10 Billion Buyback George Kerby <ghost_topper@hotmail.com> - 2012-03-21 07:46 -0500
Re: Apple to Pay Dividend, Plans $10 Billion Buyback Kurt Ullman <kurtullman@yahoo.com> - 2012-03-21 09:42 -0400
Re: Apple to Pay Dividend, Plans $10 Billion Buyback Tim McNamara <timmcn@bitstream.net> - 2012-03-21 09:23 -0500
Re: Apple to Pay Dividend, Plans $10 Billion Buyback Kurt Ullman <kurtullman@yahoo.com> - 2012-03-21 12:25 -0400
Re: Apple to Pay Dividend, Plans $10 Billion Buyback Paul Sture <paul@sture.ch> - 2012-03-22 17:56 +0100
Re: Apple to Pay Dividend, Plans $10 Billion Buyback Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2012-03-22 11:16 -0700
Re: Apple to Pay Dividend, Plans $10 Billion Buyback Kurt Ullman <kurtullman@yahoo.com> - 2012-03-22 14:41 -0400
Re: Apple to Pay Dividend, Plans $10 Billion Buyback Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2012-03-22 13:56 -0700
Re: Apple to Pay Dividend, Plans $10 Billion Buyback Kurt Ullman <kurtullman@yahoo.com> - 2012-03-22 19:37 -0400
Re: Apple to Pay Dividend, Plans $10 Billion Buyback Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2012-03-22 17:09 -0700
Re: Apple to Pay Dividend, Plans $10 Billion Buyback Tim McNamara <timmcn@bitstream.net> - 2012-03-22 23:06 -0500
Re: Apple to Pay Dividend, Plans $10 Billion Buyback Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2012-03-22 22:36 -0700
Re: Apple to Pay Dividend, Plans $10 Billion Buyback Kurt Ullman <kurtullman@yahoo.com> - 2012-03-23 00:35 -0400
Re: Apple to Pay Dividend, Plans $10 Billion Buyback Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2012-03-22 22:33 -0700
Re: Apple to Pay Dividend, Plans $10 Billion Buyback Kurt Ullman <kurtullman@yahoo.com> - 2012-03-23 09:10 -0400
Re: Apple to Pay Dividend, Plans $10 Billion Buyback-Sorry MS Kurt Ullman <kurtullman@yahoo.com> - 2012-03-23 09:41 -0400
Re: Apple to Pay Dividend, Plans $10 Billion Buyback-Sorry MS Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2012-03-23 18:58 -0700
Re: Apple to Pay Dividend, Plans $10 Billion Buyback JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2012-03-23 14:54 -0400
Re: Apple to Pay Dividend, Plans $10 Billion Buyback Kurt Ullman <kurtullman@yahoo.com> - 2012-03-23 15:06 -0400
Re: Apple to Pay Dividend, Plans $10 Billion Buyback Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2012-03-23 18:57 -0700
Re: Apple to Pay Dividend, Plans $10 Billion Buyback Kurt Ullman <kurtullman@yahoo.com> - 2012-03-24 08:43 -0400
Re: Apple to Pay Dividend, Plans $10 Billion Buyback George Kerby <ghost_topper@hotmail.com> - 2012-03-24 11:16 -0500
Re: Apple to Pay Dividend, Plans $10 Billion Buyback Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2012-03-24 10:17 -0700
Re: Apple to Pay Dividend, Plans $10 Billion Buyback George Kerby <ghost_topper@hotmail.com> - 2012-03-24 20:19 -0500
Re: Apple to Pay Dividend, Plans $10 Billion Buyback Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2012-03-24 19:42 -0700
Re: Apple to Pay Dividend, Plans $10 Billion Buyback "D.F. Manno" <dfmanno@mail.com> - 2012-03-24 18:44 -0400
Re: Apple to Pay Dividend, Plans $10 Billion Buyback George Kerby <ghost_topper@hotmail.com> - 2012-03-24 20:24 -0500
Re: Apple to Pay Dividend, Plans $10 Billion Buyback "D.F. Manno" <dfmanno@mail.com> - 2012-03-24 21:56 -0400
Re: Apple to Pay Dividend, Plans $10 Billion Buyback Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2012-03-24 10:06 -0700
Re: Apple to Pay Dividend, Plans $10 Billion Buyback Kurt Ullman <kurtullman@yahoo.com> - 2012-03-24 14:00 -0400
Re: Apple to Pay Dividend, Plans $10 Billion Buyback "D.F. Manno" <dfmanno@mail.com> - 2012-03-23 23:04 -0400
Re: Apple to Pay Dividend, Plans $10 Billion Buyback JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2012-03-22 21:34 -0400
Re: Apple to Pay Dividend, Plans $10 Billion Buyback Kurt Ullman <kurtullman@yahoo.com> - 2012-03-23 00:43 -0400
Re: Apple to Pay Dividend, Plans $10 Billion Buyback JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2012-03-23 04:51 -0400
Re: Apple to Pay Dividend, Plans $10 Billion Buyback Kurt Ullman <kurtullman@yahoo.com> - 2012-03-23 09:23 -0400
Re: Apple to Pay Dividend, Plans $10 Billion Buyback Paul Sture <paul@sture.ch> - 2012-03-23 17:30 +0100
Re: Apple to Pay Dividend, Plans $10 Billion Buyback Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2012-03-23 19:04 -0700
Re: Apple to Pay Dividend, Plans $10 Billion Buyback JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2012-03-24 00:21 -0400
Re: Apple to Pay Dividend, Plans $10 Billion Buyback "D.F. Manno" <dfmanno@mail.com> - 2012-03-23 22:56 -0400
Re: Apple to Pay Dividend, Plans $10 Billion Buyback Kurt Ullman <kurtullman@yahoo.com> - 2012-03-24 08:52 -0400
Re: Apple to Pay Dividend, Plans $10 Billion Buyback George Kerby <ghost_topper@hotmail.com> - 2012-03-24 11:18 -0500
Re: Apple to Pay Dividend, Plans $10 Billion Buyback Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2012-03-24 10:00 -0700
Re: Apple to Pay Dividend, Plans $10 Billion Buyback Kurt Ullman <kurtullman@yahoo.com> - 2012-03-24 13:54 -0400
Re: Apple to Pay Dividend, Plans $10 Billion Buyback Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2012-03-24 19:47 -0700
Re: Apple to Pay Dividend, Plans $10 Billion Buyback Kurt Ullman <kurtullman@yahoo.com> - 2012-03-25 08:58 -0400
Re: Apple to Pay Dividend, Plans $10 Billion Buyback Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2012-03-25 06:23 -0700
Re: Apple to Pay Dividend, Plans $10 Billion Buyback "D.F. Manno" <dfmanno@mail.com> - 2012-03-25 14:10 -0400
Re: Apple to Pay Dividend, Plans $10 Billion Buyback JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2012-03-24 15:09 -0400
Re: Apple to Pay Dividend, Plans $10 Billion Buyback Tim McNamara <timmcn@bitstream.net> - 2012-03-22 23:02 -0500
Re: Apple to Pay Dividend, Plans $10 Billion Buyback Kurt Ullman <kurtullman@yahoo.com> - 2012-03-23 00:44 -0400
Re: Apple to Pay Dividend, Plans $10 Billion Buyback George Kerby <ghost_topper@hotmail.com> - 2012-03-23 09:13 -0500
Re: Apple to Pay Dividend, Plans $10 Billion Buyback "D.F. Manno" <dfmanno@mail.com> - 2012-03-23 22:48 -0400
Re: Apple to Pay Dividend, Plans $10 Billion Buyback Kurt Ullman <kurtullman@yahoo.com> - 2012-03-24 08:46 -0400
Re: Apple to Pay Dividend, Plans $10 Billion Buyback "D.F. Manno" <dfmanno@mail.com> - 2012-03-24 12:03 -0400
Re: Apple to Pay Dividend, Plans $10 Billion Buyback Kurt Ullman <kurtullman@yahoo.com> - 2012-03-24 12:43 -0400
Re: Apple to Pay Dividend, Plans $10 Billion Buyback George Kerby <ghost_topper@hotmail.com> - 2012-03-24 11:08 -0500
Re: Apple to Pay Dividend, Plans $10 Billion Buyback Paul Sture <paul@sture.ch> - 2012-03-24 12:47 +0100
Re: Apple to Pay Dividend, Plans $10 Billion Buyback Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2012-03-22 16:20 -0400
Re: Apple to Pay Dividend, Plans $10 Billion Buyback Tim McNamara <timmcn@bitstream.net> - 2012-03-21 09:13 -0500
Re: Apple to Pay Dividend, Plans $10 Billion Buyback Kurt Ullman <kurtullman@yahoo.com> - 2012-03-21 12:23 -0400
Re: Apple to Pay Dividend, Plans $10 Billion Buyback George Kerby <ghost_topper@hotmail.com> - 2012-03-21 16:04 -0500
Re: Apple to Pay Dividend, Plans $10 Billion Buyback Tim McNamara <timmcn@bitstream.net> - 2012-03-21 19:30 -0500
Re: Apple to Pay Dividend, Plans $10 Billion Buyback Kurt Ullman <kurtullman@yahoo.com> - 2012-03-21 20:53 -0400
Re: Apple to Pay Dividend, Plans $10 Billion Buyback Tim McNamara <timmcn@bitstream.net> - 2012-03-21 22:28 -0500
Re: Apple to Pay Dividend, Plans $10 Billion Buyback Kurt Ullman <kurtullman@yahoo.com> - 2012-03-22 08:01 -0400
Re: Apple to Pay Dividend, Plans $10 Billion Buyback Kurt Ullman <kurtullman@yahoo.com> - 2012-03-22 08:13 -0400
Re: Apple to Pay Dividend, Plans $10 Billion Buyback Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2012-03-21 08:44 -0700
Re: Apple to Pay Dividend, Plans $10 Billion Buyback Kurt Ullman <kurtullman@yahoo.com> - 2012-03-21 12:29 -0400
Re: Apple to Pay Dividend, Plans $10 Billion Buyback George Kerby <ghost_topper@hotmail.com> - 2012-03-21 15:26 -0500
Re: Apple to Pay Dividend, Plans $10 Billion Buyback Kurt Ullman <kurtullman@yahoo.com> - 2012-03-21 16:45 -0400
Re: Apple to Pay Dividend, Plans $10 Billion Buyback Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2012-03-21 14:34 -0700
Re: Apple to Pay Dividend, Plans $10 Billion Buyback Tim McNamara <timmcn@bitstream.net> - 2012-03-21 19:05 -0500
Re: Apple to Pay Dividend, Plans $10 Billion Buyback "D.F. Manno" <dfmanno@mail.com> - 2012-03-22 14:16 -0400
Re: Apple to Pay Dividend, Plans $10 Billion Buyback Kurt Ullman <kurtullman@yahoo.com> - 2012-03-22 14:34 -0400
Re: Apple to Pay Dividend, Plans $10 Billion Buyback Tim McNamara <timmcn@bitstream.net> - 2012-03-22 14:25 -0500
Re: Apple to Pay Dividend, Plans $10 Billion Buyback George Kerby <ghost_topper@hotmail.com> - 2012-03-23 09:02 -0500
Re: Apple to Pay Dividend, Plans $10 Billion Buyback Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2012-03-23 10:44 -0700
Re: Apple to Pay Dividend, Plans $10 Billion Buyback George Kerby <ghost_topper@hotmail.com> - 2012-03-23 14:05 -0500
Re: Apple to Pay Dividend, Plans $10 Billion Buyback News <News@Group.Name> - 2012-03-23 15:20 -0400
Re: Apple to Pay Dividend, Plans $10 Billion Buyback George Kerby <ghost_topper@hotmail.com> - 2012-03-23 19:19 -0500
Re: Apple to Pay Dividend, Plans $10 Billion Buyback Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2012-03-23 20:05 -0700
Re: Apple to Pay Dividend, Plans $10 Billion Buyback George Kerby <ghost_topper@hotmail.com> - 2012-03-24 10:54 -0500
Re: Apple to Pay Dividend, Plans $10 Billion Buyback Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2012-03-24 09:48 -0700
Re: Apple to Pay Dividend, Plans $10 Billion Buyback News <News@Group.Post> - 2012-03-24 12:53 -0400
Re: Apple to Pay Dividend, Plans $10 Billion Buyback George Kerby <ghost_topper@hotmail.com> - 2012-03-24 20:15 -0500
Re: Apple to Pay Dividend, Plans $10 Billion Buyback News <News@Group.Post> - 2012-03-25 12:01 -0400
Re: Apple to Pay Dividend, Plans $10 Billion Buyback "Douglas C. Neidermeyer" <sgt@arms.omega.faber.edu> - 2012-03-24 18:45 -0400
Re: Apple to Pay Dividend, Plans $10 Billion Buyback Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2012-03-24 19:30 -0700
Re: Apple to Pay Dividend, Plans $10 Billion Buyback "Douglas C. Neidermeyer" <sgt@arms.omega.faber.edu> - 2012-03-25 18:11 -0400
Re: Apple to Pay Dividend, Plans $10 Billion Buyback russotto@grace.speakeasy.net (Matthew Russotto) - 2012-03-26 00:10 +0000
Re: Apple to Pay Dividend, Plans $10 Billion Buyback Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2012-03-25 17:39 -0700
Re: Apple to Pay Dividend, Plans $10 Billion Buyback russotto@grace.speakeasy.net (Matthew Russotto) - 2012-03-26 02:50 +0000
Re: Apple to Pay Dividend, Plans $10 Billion Buyback Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2012-03-25 21:10 -0700
Re: Apple to Pay Dividend, Plans $10 Billion Buyback JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2012-03-24 15:02 -0400
Re: Apple to Pay Dividend, Plans $10 Billion Buyback "D.F. Manno" <dfmanno@mail.com> - 2012-03-24 19:09 -0400
Re: Apple to Pay Dividend, Plans $10 Billion Buyback George Kerby <ghost_topper@hotmail.com> - 2012-03-25 09:39 -0500
Re: Apple to Pay Dividend, Plans $10 Billion Buyback "D.F. Manno" <dfmanno@mail.com> - 2012-03-25 14:02 -0400
Re: Apple to Pay Dividend, Plans $10 Billion Buyback News <News@Group.Post> - 2012-03-24 12:42 -0400
Re: Apple to Pay Dividend, Plans $10 Billion Buyback Todd Allcock <elecconnec@AnoOspamL.com> - 2012-03-23 15:52 -0600
Re: Apple to Pay Dividend, Plans $10 Billion Buyback George Kerby <ghost_topper@hotmail.com> - 2012-03-23 19:24 -0500
Re: Apple to Pay Dividend, Plans $10 Billion Buyback Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2012-03-23 20:04 -0700
Re: Apple to Pay Dividend, Plans $10 Billion Buyback George Kerby <ghost_topper@hotmail.com> - 2012-03-24 10:43 -0500
Re: Apple to Pay Dividend, Plans $10 Billion Buyback Todd Allcock <elecconnec@AnoOspamL.com> - 2012-03-24 11:22 -0600
Re: Apple to Pay Dividend, Plans $10 Billion Buyback Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2012-03-24 15:16 -0400
Re: Apple to Pay Dividend, Plans $10 Billion Buyback News <News@Group.Post> - 2012-03-24 16:10 -0400
Re: Apple to Pay Dividend, Plans $10 Billion Buyback Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2012-03-25 12:19 -0400
Re: Apple to Pay Dividend, Plans $10 Billion Buyback Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2012-03-24 19:31 -0700
Re: Apple to Pay Dividend, Plans $10 Billion Buyback Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2012-03-25 12:40 -0400
Re: Apple to Pay Dividend, Plans $10 Billion Buyback Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2012-03-25 13:46 -0700
Re: Apple to Pay Dividend, Plans $10 Billion Buyback Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2012-03-25 18:14 -0400
Re: Apple to Pay Dividend, Plans $10 Billion Buyback russotto@grace.speakeasy.net (Matthew Russotto) - 2012-03-26 00:13 +0000
Re: Apple to Pay Dividend, Plans $10 Billion Buyback Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2012-03-26 17:44 -0400
Re: Apple to Pay Dividend, Plans $10 Billion Buyback George Kerby <ghost_topper@hotmail.com> - 2012-03-24 20:20 -0500
Re: Apple to Pay Dividend, Plans $10 Billion Buyback George Kerby <ghost_topper@hotmail.com> - 2012-03-25 09:33 -0500
Re: Apple to Pay Dividend, Plans $10 Billion Buyback Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2012-03-25 07:45 -0700
Re: Apple to Pay Dividend, Plans $10 Billion Buyback Todd Allcock <elecconnec@AnoOspamL.com> - 2012-03-25 13:07 -0600
Re: Apple to Pay Dividend, Plans $10 Billion Buyback "D.F. Manno" <dfmanno@mail.com> - 2012-03-24 19:02 -0400
Re: Apple to Pay Dividend, Plans $10 Billion Buyback George Kerby <ghost_topper@hotmail.com> - 2012-03-24 20:26 -0500
Re: Apple to Pay Dividend, Plans $10 Billion Buyback "D.F. Manno" <dfmanno@mail.com> - 2012-03-24 21:59 -0400
Re: Apple to Pay Dividend, Plans $10 Billion Buyback News <News@Group.Post> - 2012-03-24 12:42 -0400
Re: Apple to Pay Dividend, Plans $10 Billion Buyback Todd Allcock <elecconnec@AnoOspamL.com> - 2012-03-24 11:09 -0600
Re: Apple to Pay Dividend, Plans $10 Billion Buyback "D.F. Manno" <dfmanno@mail.com> - 2012-03-23 22:45 -0400
Re: Apple to Pay Dividend, Plans $10 Billion Buyback Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2012-03-23 20:00 -0700
Re: Apple to Pay Dividend, Plans $10 Billion Buyback "D.F. Manno" <dfmanno@mail.com> - 2012-03-23 22:43 -0400
Re: Apple to Pay Dividend, Plans $10 Billion Buyback George Kerby <ghost_topper@hotmail.com> - 2012-03-24 10:40 -0500
Re: Apple to Pay Dividend, Plans $10 Billion Buyback "D.F. Manno" <dfmanno@mail.com> - 2012-03-23 22:42 -0400
Re: Apple to Pay Dividend, Plans $10 Billion Buyback Kurt Ullman <kurtullman@yahoo.com> - 2012-03-24 08:21 -0400
Re: Apple to Pay Dividend, Plans $10 Billion Buyback "D.F. Manno" <dfmanno@mail.com> - 2012-03-24 18:29 -0400
Re: Apple to Pay Dividend, Plans $10 Billion Buyback George Kerby <ghost_topper@hotmail.com> - 2012-03-25 09:36 -0500
Re: Apple to Pay Dividend, Plans $10 Billion Buyback "D.F. Manno" <dfmanno@mail.com> - 2012-03-25 13:56 -0400
Re: Apple to Pay Dividend, Plans $10 Billion Buyback "Thomas R. Kettler" <tkettler@blownfuse.net> - 2012-03-21 11:08 -0400
Re: Apple to Pay Dividend, Plans $10 Billion Buyback Tim McNamara <timmcn@bitstream.net> - 2012-03-20 20:34 -0500
Re: Apple to Pay Dividend, Plans $10 Billion Buyback George Kerby <ghost_topper@hotmail.com> - 2012-03-21 07:49 -0500
Re: Apple to Pay Dividend, Plans $10 Billion Buyback Tim McNamara <timmcn@bitstream.net> - 2012-03-21 09:25 -0500
Re: Apple to Pay Dividend, Plans $10 Billion Buyback George Kerby <ghost_topper@hotmail.com> - 2012-03-21 11:02 -0500
Re: Apple to Pay Dividend, Plans $10 Billion Buyback Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2012-03-21 09:20 -0700
Re: Apple to Pay Dividend, Plans $10 Billion Buyback George Kerby <ghost_topper@hotmail.com> - 2012-03-21 16:02 -0500
Re: Apple to Pay Dividend, Plans $10 Billion Buyback Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2012-03-21 14:24 -0700
Re: Apple to Pay Dividend, Plans $10 Billion Buyback Todd Allcock <elecconnec@AnoOspamL.com> - 2012-03-21 16:38 -0600
Re: Apple to Pay Dividend, Plans $10 Billion Buyback Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2012-03-21 16:59 -0700
Re: Apple to Pay Dividend, Plans $10 Billion Buyback Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2012-03-22 16:32 -0400
Re: Apple to Pay Dividend, Plans $10 Billion Buyback Paul Sture <paul@sture.ch> - 2012-03-23 14:16 +0100
Re: Apple to Pay Dividend, Plans $10 Billion Buyback Tim McNamara <timmcn@bitstream.net> - 2012-03-21 19:11 -0500
Re: Apple to Pay Dividend, Plans $10 Billion Buyback Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2012-03-21 18:49 -0700
Re: Apple to Pay Dividend, Plans $10 Billion Buyback JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2012-03-22 00:45 -0400
Re: Apple to Pay Dividend, Plans $10 Billion Buyback Steve Hix <sehix@NOSPAMmac.comINVALID> - 2012-03-21 23:09 -0700
Re: Apple to Pay Dividend, Plans $10 Billion Buyback Kurt Ullman <kurtullman@yahoo.com> - 2012-03-22 07:51 -0400
Re: Apple to Pay Dividend, Plans $10 Billion Buyback Tim McNamara <timmcn@bitstream.net> - 2012-03-22 08:28 -0500
Re: Apple to Pay Dividend, Plans $10 Billion Buyback Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2012-03-22 16:28 -0400
Re: Apple to Pay Dividend, Plans $10 Billion Buyback Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2012-03-22 10:10 -0700
Re: Apple to Pay Dividend, Plans $10 Billion Buyback Tim McNamara <timmcn@bitstream.net> - 2012-03-21 19:09 -0500
Re: Apple to Pay Dividend, Plans $10 Billion Buyback Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2012-03-21 08:23 -0700
Re: Apple to Pay Dividend, Plans $10 Billion Buyback Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2012-03-22 16:34 -0400
Re: Apple to Pay Dividend, Plans $10 Billion Buyback Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2012-03-22 13:45 -0700
Re: Apple to Pay Dividend, Plans $10 Billion Buyback Paul Sture <paul@sture.ch> - 2012-03-20 12:21 +0100
Re: Apple to Pay Dividend, Plans $10 Billion Buyback HelpfulHarry@BusyWorking.com (Helpful Harry) - 2012-03-20 08:12 +1200
Re: Apple to Pay Dividend, Plans $10 Billion Buyback JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2012-03-19 16:49 -0400
Re: Apple to Pay Dividend, Plans $10 Billion Buyback Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2012-03-19 19:37 -0400
Re: Apple to Pay Dividend, Plans $10 Billion Buyback Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2012-03-19 16:56 -0400
Re: Apple to Pay Dividend, Plans $10 Billion Buyback JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2012-03-19 17:08 -0400
Re: Apple to Pay Dividend, Plans $10 Billion Buyback Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2012-03-19 17:22 -0400
Re: Apple to Pay Dividend, Plans $10 Billion Buyback JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2012-03-19 17:46 -0400
Re: Apple to Pay Dividend, Plans $10 Billion Buyback Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2012-03-19 14:54 -0700
Re: Apple to Pay Dividend, Plans $10 Billion Buyback Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2012-03-19 18:17 -0400
Re: Apple to Pay Dividend, Plans $10 Billion Buyback JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2012-03-19 19:00 -0400
Re: Apple to Pay Dividend, Plans $10 Billion Buyback Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2012-03-19 19:23 -0400
Re: Apple to Pay Dividend, Plans $10 Billion Buyback Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2012-03-19 19:26 -0400
Re: Apple to Pay Dividend, Plans $10 Billion Buyback Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2012-03-19 17:55 -0700
Re: Apple to Pay Dividend, Plans $10 Billion Buyback JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2012-03-19 22:14 -0400
Re: Apple to Pay Dividend, Plans $10 Billion Buyback Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2012-03-19 20:58 -0700
Page 3 of 10 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 … 10 Next page →
| From | George Kerby <ghost_topper@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-03-24 20:24 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <CB93DDEF.840AB%ghost_topper@hotmail.com> |
| In reply to | #22801 |
On 3/24/12 5:44 PM, in article dfmanno-2305BD.18444024032012@news.albasani.net, "D.F. Manno" <dfmanno@mail.com> wrote: > In article <CB935D7C.83FD0%ghost_topper@hotmail.com>, > George Kerby <ghost_topper@hotmail.com> wrote: > >> Interesting aside that most of our liberal friends most likely are not >> aware: Margaret Sanger, founder of that wonderful organization was a devout >> racist and the purpose was to prevent the population growth of "Negros"... > > 1) Sanger was a eugenicist at a time when eugenics was considered > cutting-edge science and many people advocated it. Eugenicists were > hoping to improve the human race by preventing people with genetic > defects from reproducing, and limiting birth control and abortion for > women who were considered "fit" or healthy. That eugenics was later > shown to be bad science and was adopted by the Nazis and others to > justify racism does not make Sanger a racist. You're applying today's > morality to yesterday's culture. > > 2) You're lying, again. The "quotes" purported to show she was a racist > are either taken out of conduct, falsely attributed to her or > out-and-out fabricated. > > 3) It's interesting how conservatives ignore all the proven racists in > their ranks to concentrate on the few people on the other side at whom > they can hurl accusations - founded or not. "And why beholdest thou the > mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is > in thine own eye?" (Matt 7:3) Funny, I quoted a leftist black website and you somehow managed to leave that fact out of your carefully constructed bullshit response. Hmmm?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "D.F. Manno" <dfmanno@mail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-03-24 21:56 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <dfmanno-3DDB00.21563024032012@news.albasani.net> |
| In reply to | #22817 |
In article <CB93DDEF.840AB%ghost_topper@hotmail.com>, George Kerby <ghost_topper@hotmail.com> wrote: > On 3/24/12 5:44 PM, in article > dfmanno-2305BD.18444024032012@news.albasani.net, "D.F. Manno" > <dfmanno@mail.com> wrote: > > > In article <CB935D7C.83FD0%ghost_topper@hotmail.com>, > > George Kerby <ghost_topper@hotmail.com> wrote: > > > >> Interesting aside that most of our liberal friends most likely are not > >> aware: Margaret Sanger, founder of that wonderful organization was a devout > >> racist and the purpose was to prevent the population growth of "Negros"... > > > > 1) Sanger was a eugenicist at a time when eugenics was considered > > cutting-edge science and many people advocated it. Eugenicists were > > hoping to improve the human race by preventing people with genetic > > defects from reproducing, and limiting birth control and abortion for > > women who were considered "fit" or healthy. That eugenics was later > > shown to be bad science and was adopted by the Nazis and others to > > justify racism does not make Sanger a racist. You're applying today's > > morality to yesterday's culture. > > > > 2) You're lying, again. The "quotes" purported to show she was a racist > > are either taken out of conduct, falsely attributed to her or > > out-and-out fabricated. > > > > 3) It's interesting how conservatives ignore all the proven racists in > > their ranks to concentrate on the few people on the other side at whom > > they can hurl accusations - founded or not. "And why beholdest thou the > > mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is > > in thine own eye?" (Matt 7:3) > > Funny, I quoted a leftist black website and you somehow managed to leave > that fact out of your carefully constructed bullshit response. Hmmm? You just can't stop lying. That Web site is neither leftist nor black. It's a forced-birth advocacy site: > MISSION: WHO WE ARE > Therefore, LEARN welcomes into the network all communities who support > Christian values and to ensure the survival of all races of people, and > improve our quality of life without sacrificing our children. > > Life is a wonderful choice.... > > The LEARN newsletter is vital to the education of our community regarding the > holocaust of abortion... <http://blackgenocide.org/mission.html> The site features alleged "images of abortion" and touts phony "crisis pregnancy centers" that harass women seeking abortions. They're a front organization manipulating racial concerns to serve their anti-choice crusade. -- D.F. Manno | dfmanno@mail.com Conservatives want live babies so they can raise them to be dead soldiers. (George Carlin)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-03-24 10:06 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <michelle-2BA1F7.10065224032012@news.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #22744 |
In article <5MudnSGBE-n_XPDSnZ2dnUVZ_rSdnZ2d@earthlink.com>, Kurt Ullman <kurtullman@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > Although I do not like the hyperbole about rape. > > > > Those laws require a doctor to stick a rod, six inches or so long, > > into the vagina of the woman, against her will. And that, my friend, > > is rape, no matter how you slice it. > > I would definitely go with assault and it is on its face an attempt to > shame someone--which is VERY bad policy-- but physical rape is still > orders of magnitude worse psychologically and physically. Rape is sexual penetration against the will of the person being penetrated, regardless of the degree of force used. > > Not all rapes are as brutal as the ones you're alluding to. And how > > do you know what the psych impact to these women is? > I have yet to see or hear of a rape that wasn't brutal. Rape is, > afterall about physical and mental control and not about sex. There's physical brutality, which is what I interpreted you to be talking about. and I fully agree with your second sentence. > Just because I have a penis I can't have empathy for the victims of > rape? I neither said nor implied that, and if I led you to think that I did, I apologize for that. > > > However, I also note that the pro-abortion people tried really hard > > > to get their clinics exempted from many of the regs and rules that > > > surrounded other out-patient surgical centers. > > > > I don't know of anyone who does that. I do know that many in the GOP > > want chemically induced abortion (e.g., Plan B) to be classified as > > surgical abortion. > > You weren't paying attention. Heck Planned Parenthood tried that in > Indiana about 10 years ago suggesting that the State's attempt to make > them conform to the rules and regulations of all other outpatient > surgical facilities was against the Constitutional protections set out > in Roe v Wade. Got a citation for that? -- Tea Party Patriots is to Patriotism as People's Democratic Republic is to Democracy.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Kurt Ullman <kurtullman@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-03-24 14:00 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <ubCdnWyc-_81lvPSnZ2dnUVZ_sGdnZ2d@earthlink.com> |
| In reply to | #22770 |
In article <michelle-2BA1F7.10065224032012@news.eternal-september.org>,
Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> wrote:
>
> Rape is sexual penetration against the will of the person being penetrated,
> regardless of the degree of force used.
But I would be hard pressed to suggest that this was sexual
penetration with a medical instrument. Either way, this is a side issue
to the fact that it isn't medically indicated an thus put out there for
the sole purpose of make it as uncomfortable as possible for the woman.
The semantics arguments we are having are taking time away from the
policy ones. Which is really the point I was trying to make in the first
place.
> T
> I neither said nor implied that, and if I led you to think that I did, I
> apologize for that.
Accepted.
>
>
> Got a citation for that?
Give me a couple days as I am on a couple of deadlines.
--
People thought cybersex was a safe alternative,
until patients started presenting with sexually
acquired carpal tunnel syndrome.-Howard Berkowitz
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "D.F. Manno" <dfmanno@mail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-03-23 23:04 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <dfmanno-CF378B.23040823032012@news.albasani.net> |
| In reply to | #22679 |
In article <66SdnbOVD8bQ6_HSnZ2dnUVZ_sOdnZ2d@earthlink.com>, Kurt Ullman <kurtullman@yahoo.com> wrote: > I was saying > that I saw no problems with gay marriages as long as there was no > requirement that a religion that was against them had to perform them. > I don't think abortion clinics should be subjected > to any additional regulations. Why should anyone believe you? Conservatives lie. -- D.F. Manno | dfmanno@mail.com Conservatives want live babies so they can raise them to be dead soldiers. (George Carlin)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-03-22 21:34 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <4f6bd328$0$31116$c3e8da3$b280bf18@news.astraweb.com> |
| In reply to | #22650 |
Kurt Ullman wrote: > For instance, I don't think that religious organizations that have a > specific piece of their dogma that is against birth control should be > required to provide insurance for those kinds of pills for birth > control. This is a political hot potatoe because the USA has become such a religiouly extremist country. If you have natioal standards for health care, then it doesn't matter if the employer is a church or a steel mill. Same sandards should apply. The church doesn't administer the insurance scheme, they simply pays for a portion of it to their employees. A secretary or accountant working for the Catholic church should not be treated any differently than a secretary working for the Church of Apple. A church is free to put posters up in the coffee room to try to convince its secretaries and accountants to not use birth control, but at the end of the day, employees are off the clock when they leave the office and their personal life is none of the church's business. Religions have a certain amount of latitude when it comes to human rights. They can apply sexual discrimination when it comes to approving a religious wedding (must be people of different sex). They can also apply religious discrimination (requiring both be part of that religion). However, that latitude must have limits and churches must not be allowed to totally ignore human rights. When it comes to employees, employees must be given full human rights. While a church can refuse to marry a gay employee, it cannot prevent that employee from getting a civil mariage outside of the church. And frankly, any church who continues to refuse to accept birth control should be sent to some genocide tribunal when you consider how many thousands of africans they condemned to their deaths by telling them that the use of condoms was not acceptable. This isn't the dark ages anymore, it is the 21st century. An no government should uphold a church's rights to exagerate in its abuses of human rights. Unfortunatly, because no politician has the guts to stand up to those idiotic churches because they fear losing votes, a whole country is falling back into the dark ages. Churches are not doctors. They have no business dictating what health care their employees get or don't get.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Kurt Ullman <kurtullman@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-03-23 00:43 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <dridnXnlp-3DYvbSnZ2dnUVZ_sudnZ2d@earthlink.com> |
| In reply to | #22657 |
In article <4f6bd328$0$31116$c3e8da3$b280bf18@news.astraweb.com>,
JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote:
>
> If you have natioal standards for health care, then it doesn't matter if
> the employer is a church or a steel mill. Same sandards should apply.
Of course it does. Or do we only separate church and state when you
like the idea?
>
> The church doesn't administer the insurance scheme, they simply pays for
> a portion of it to their employees. A secretary or accountant working
> for the Catholic church should not be treated any differently than a
> secretary working for the Church of Apple.
They pay to have someone administer it for them. They sponsor it
under their name and it is their money that they spend. The state has no
right (I would suggest under the constitution but there haven't been any
cases even trying) to say how a church spends their if it is against
their principles.
>
> A church is free to put posters up in the coffee room to try to convince
> its secretaries and accountants to not use birth control, but at the end
> of the day, employees are off the clock when they leave the office and
> their personal life is none of the church's business.
Correct. But this is not about their personal life. They are not
saying that a person can't buy BC, just that the Church has a moral
objection of paying for it.
>
> Religions have a certain amount of latitude when it comes to human
> rights. They can apply sexual discrimination when it comes to approving
> a religious wedding (must be people of different sex). They can also
> apply religious discrimination (requiring both be part of that
> religion). However, that latitude must have limits and churches must
> not be allowed to totally ignore human rights.
Not sure where there is a right to have birth control pills. What
about the rights of the Church?
>
> When it comes to employees, employees must be given full human rights.
> While a church can refuse to marry a gay employee, it cannot prevent
> that employee from getting a civil mariage outside of the church.
Which is a completely different idea from what we are talking about.
Not really sure how it fits in with birth control and insurance.
>
> Churches are not doctors. They have no business dictating what health
> care their employees get or don't get.
Why not? Even the government programs have very specific rules about
what they will and will not pay for. No insurance pays for everything
that is available.
--
People thought cybersex was a safe alternative,
until patients started presenting with sexually
acquired carpal tunnel syndrome.-Howard Berkowitz
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-03-23 04:51 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <4f6c39a9$0$31126$c3e8da3$b280bf18@news.astraweb.com> |
| In reply to | #22667 |
Kurt Ullman wrote: > They pay to have someone administer it for them. It is my understanding that employers end up subsidizing and employe,s purchase of a private insurance health care plan. Once this is done, the employee deals directly with the insurance company to get procedure approvals/denials etc. The employer is not involved. If 18th century churches are not willing to provide health care packages that abide by national standards, they can always tell their employees that the church does not provide health care subsidies and that employees have to buy it on their own. If they lose employees because of this, tough luck. A church, as am employer, is a corporation, not a religion. Forcing the business side of a church to abide by national standards and laws does not prevent the religion side of the church from practicing its religion. The sad part is that americans don't laugh at religions that are still against birth control. Such religions should be laughed out of existence. Churches that thrive by giving their brainwashed masses the illusion of protection by proposing 18th century lifestyle shouldn't bother with healthcare anyways. > saying that a person can't buy BC, just that the Church has a moral > objection of paying for it. The thing is that it isn't the church buying the health care insurance. It is the corporation which administers the church. That corporation doesn't go by the bible, it goes by the tax and other regulatory laws of the country it operates in. So even though the church's administters would be forced to buy health care packages that abide by national standards, they would be free to try to convince their employees to abide by the religion's gospel and not use birth control. Churches have lost moral leadership. They have to accept that society has moved on and does not accept that a church would prevent evolution of sociaty. > Not sure where there is a right to have birth control pills. What > about the rights of the Church? The church has every right to try to convince its members to not use birth control. But when it comes to dealing with administrative employees, the church has to abide by national, state and municipal laws. Same goes with building code. They need fire alarms etc. > Which is a completely different idea from what we are talking about. > Not really sure how it fits in with birth control and insurance. It fits because churches act as if they are immune from local/national laws and human rights and can discriminate as they see fit. Wanting to not pay for health car insurance that includes procedures they disagree with is similar: they dont want to abide by national laws/programmes/standards. And the church cannot dictate to a government what medical procedures should and shouldn't be included in a national health care plan. > Why not? Even the government programs have very specific rules about > what they will and will not pay for. No insurance pays for everything > that is available. In Canada, doctors decide which procedures are necessary. They advise the government who constructs a list of elective surgeries not covered by the plan, but most of those have special cases where they are covered. Cosmetic surgery would not normally be covered, but in the case of serious burn victim, then the doctors would validate that this is not elective cosmeic surgery and it would then by paid by the insurance programme.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Kurt Ullman <kurtullman@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-03-23 09:23 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <Crydndsh3vjE5PHSnZ2dnUVZ_gOdnZ2d@earthlink.com> |
| In reply to | #22677 |
In article <4f6c39a9$0$31126$c3e8da3$b280bf18@news.astraweb.com>,
JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote:
> Kurt Ullman wrote:
>
> > They pay to have someone administer it for them.
>
> It is my understanding that employers end up subsidizing and employe,s
> purchase of a private insurance health care plan. Once this is done, the
> employee deals directly with the insurance company to get procedure
> approvals/denials etc. The employer is not involved.
The employee deals with the insurance company based on the plan the
employer agrees to and it usually is renogiated between the company and
the plan yearly. The employer is always involved.
>
>
> If 18th century churches are not willing to provide health care packages
> that abide by national standards, they can always tell their employees
> that the church does not provide health care subsidies and that
> employees have to buy it on their own. If they lose employees because of
> this, tough luck.
Why? You really want to toss everybody out into the insurance
nightmare and punish the churches because they don't want to pay for a
very minor piece of the healthcare pie? Seems like going after a
misquito with an atom bomb.
>
>
>
> The sad part is that americans don't laugh at religions that are still
> against birth control. Such religions should be laughed out of existence.
I am not against, applying the free market forces to religion. It is
the application of governmental forces that I am against.
>
>
>
>
> > saying that a person can't buy BC, just that the Church has a moral
> > objection of paying for it.
>
>
> The thing is that it isn't the church buying the health care insurance.
> It is the corporation which administers the church. That corporation
> doesn't go by the bible, it goes by the tax and other regulatory laws of
> the country it operates in.
The corporation is owned by the Church and by definition the legal
embodiment of the Church. We're gonna have to disagree on this issue.
>
>
> So even though the church's administters would be forced to buy health
> care packages that abide by national standards, they would be free to
> try to convince their employees to abide by the religion's gospel and
> not use birth control.
Have to be. The first amendment issues are much less murky in this
area.
>
> The church has every right to try to convince its members to not use
> birth control. But when it comes to dealing with administrative
> employees, the church has to abide by national, state and municipal
> laws. Same goes with building code. They need fire alarms etc.
If you can find a church where they have a long-standing liturgical
ban on fire alarms, I would have to disagree. Until then, it is a side
issue with no relevance to the issue at hand.
>
> And the church cannot dictate to a government what medical procedures
> should and shouldn't be included in a national health care plan.
Which they aren't or is they are I would agree. But then of course,
I see no reason that the government should be able to dictate back the
other way within the very framework I have set out.
>
>
> In Canada, doctors decide which procedures are necessary. They advise
> the government who constructs a list of elective surgeries not covered
> by the plan, but most of those have special cases where they are
> covered. Cosmetic surgery would not normally be covered, but in the
> case of serious burn victim, then the doctors would validate that this
> is not elective cosmeic surgery and it would then by paid by the
> insurance programme.
Canadian government also decides which medicines will be covered, in
what order they are given (usually try to start with older, cheaper
medications and then go to the newer ones if the older ones don't work)
and does the same with medical devices. BUNCHES of articles from the 70s
forward noting the differences in speed with which the US and Canada
accept new technologies. (They essentially let us be the guinea pigs and
work out the kinks).
--
People thought cybersex was a safe alternative,
until patients started presenting with sexually
acquired carpal tunnel syndrome.-Howard Berkowitz
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Paul Sture <paul@sture.ch> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-03-23 17:30 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <92lu39-87o.ln1@news.sture.ch> |
| In reply to | #22680 |
On Fri, 23 Mar 2012 09:23:34 -0400, Kurt Ullman wrote: > Seems like going after a mosquito with an atom bomb. When you hear a mosquito of the malaria giving kind in your bedroom at 3 in the morning the nuclear option seems appropriate. I _knew_ that it was either me who got ill or the mozzie died first. Fortunately I won. -- Paul Sture
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-03-23 19:04 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <michelle-A54BC3.19040523032012@news.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #22677 |
In article <4f6c39a9$0$31126$c3e8da3$b280bf18@news.astraweb.com>, JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote: > > They pay to have someone administer it for them. > > It is my understanding that employers end up subsidizing and employe,s > purchase of a private insurance health care plan. Once this is done, the > employee deals directly with the insurance company to get procedure > approvals/denials etc. The employer is not involved. Yes and no. The employee pays a portion of the premium and the employer pays a portion of the premium. Obama's current plan is that if the company doesn't want to pay for abortion coverage because of religious reasons, it won't pay a share of the part of the policy that covers abortion, and the employee would pay all of that part of the premium. The Catholic Church and most Republican politicians and pundits don't accept that compromise. -- Tea Party Patriots is to Patriotism as People's Democratic Republic is to Democracy.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-03-24 00:21 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <4f6d4bb7$0$8578$c3e8da3$cc4fe22d@news.astraweb.com> |
| In reply to | #22711 |
Michelle Steiner wrote: > that part of the premium. The Catholic Church and most Republican > politicians and pundits don't accept that compromise. If course not. Think of the political ammunition with "under obama, your contribution to your church will go towards paying for teenage abortions". If they accept the compromise, they wont be able to use that attack. That is why I feel there is something very wrong with the way the US government works. Political poarties seem intent on making sure the governing party fails, and making sure they can say "candidate X voted against saving thus cute puppy" (and not mention that this bill included the slaughter of 10,000 puppies as an amendment. In other words, they spend 4 years building up ammunition for 4 months of campaigning instead of spending 4 years serving the people to whom they report: the citizens.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "D.F. Manno" <dfmanno@mail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-03-23 22:56 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <dfmanno-5EF33F.22564423032012@news.albasani.net> |
| In reply to | #22650 |
In article <mcSdnRGrBbFbKvbSnZ2dnUVZ_qadnZ2d@earthlink.com>, Kurt Ullman <kurtullman@yahoo.com> wrote: > For instance, I don't think that religious organizations that have a > specific piece of their dogma that is against birth control should be > required to provide insurance for those kinds of pills for birth > control. But should for medical uses (such as heavy periods) where there > is a label indication. So you think employers have the right to know why their workers are using contraception. Yeah, conservatives want to get government off their backs and into women's vaginas. > Using the Catholic Church as a for instance, that would include plans > for employees of the diocese, any religious schools, and any hospitals > owned and run by the church. That's crap. The RCC is trying to limit insurance that it _doesn't_ pay for from covering contraception. The students at Georgetown University pay for their student health coverage, yet the school still thinks it has the right to ban coverage of contraception under the plan. > BTW: Viagra is a given under my scenario since it is used to treat > the sequalae of a medical condition usually peripheral artery disease. Well, you'll certainly never need it for sex. -- D.F. Manno | dfmanno@mail.com Conservatives want live babies so they can raise them to be dead soldiers. (George Carlin)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Kurt Ullman <kurtullman@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-03-24 08:52 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <JqmdnWKNR74UXvDSnZ2dnUVZ_rKdnZ2d@earthlink.com> |
| In reply to | #22716 |
In article <dfmanno-5EF33F.22564423032012@news.albasani.net>,
"D.F. Manno" <dfmanno@mail.com> wrote:
> In article <mcSdnRGrBbFbKvbSnZ2dnUVZ_qadnZ2d@earthlink.com>,
> Kurt Ullman <kurtullman@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > For instance, I don't think that religious organizations that have a
> > specific piece of their dogma that is against birth control should be
> > required to provide insurance for those kinds of pills for birth
> > control. But should for medical uses (such as heavy periods) where there
> > is a label indication.
>
> So you think employers have the right to know why their workers are
> using contraception.
>
> Yeah, conservatives want to get government off their backs and into
> women's vaginas.
>
Where do you come up with such things? First and foremost, the
insurance company would know but couldn't tell the company under the
privacy laws. Heck I own my personal family policy and the quarterly
reports from the insurance company don't even tell what my WIFE spent
money on, just the amounts. Only thing the insurance company might tell
the company would be the aggregate paid, and I am not even sure they go
that fine in most cases.
> > Using the Catholic Church as a for instance, that would include plans
> > for employees of the diocese, any religious schools, and any hospitals
> > owned and run by the church.
>
> That's crap. The RCC is trying to limit insurance that it _doesn't_ pay
> for from covering contraception. The students at Georgetown University
> pay for their student health coverage, yet the school still thinks it
> has the right to ban coverage of contraception under the plan.
If they are sponsoring the group, then I would say they still have a
case. Since even under the Healthcare Act GU wouldn't be required to
provide insurance to non-employed students, you may win battle but lose
the war. If I were GU, I'd just stop the program. .
>
> > BTW: Viagra is a given under my scenario since it is used to treat
> > the sequalae of a medical condition usually peripheral artery disease.
>
> Well, you'll certainly never need it for sex.
Gee again with the potty mouth. SUch passes civil discourse amongst
the liberals??
--
People thought cybersex was a safe alternative,
until patients started presenting with sexually
acquired carpal tunnel syndrome.-Howard Berkowitz
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | George Kerby <ghost_topper@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-03-24 11:18 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <CB935E1B.83FD1%ghost_topper@hotmail.com> |
| In reply to | #22746 |
On 3/24/12 7:52 AM, in article JqmdnWKNR74UXvDSnZ2dnUVZ_rKdnZ2d@earthlink.com, "Kurt Ullman" <kurtullman@yahoo.com> wrote: > In article <dfmanno-5EF33F.22564423032012@news.albasani.net>, > "D.F. Manno" <dfmanno@mail.com> wrote: > >> >> Well, you'll certainly never need it for sex. > Gee again with the potty mouth. SUch passes civil discourse amongst > the liberals?? It's a requirement, doncha' know? Look at the Occu-poopers for a start. Such Gentle People there...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-03-24 10:00 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <michelle-D2CADB.10005424032012@news.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #22746 |
In article <JqmdnWKNR74UXvDSnZ2dnUVZ_rKdnZ2d@earthlink.com>, Kurt Ullman <kurtullman@yahoo.com> wrote: > > So you think employers have the right to know why their workers are > > using contraception. > > > > Yeah, conservatives want to get government off their backs and into > > women's vaginas. > > > Where do you come up with such things? First and foremost, the > insurance company would know but couldn't tell the company under the > privacy laws. The law that the GOP wants to put into effect would require the employee have a note from her doctor declaring that the prescription is not for birth control. > > > BTW: Viagra is a given under my scenario since it is used to treat > > > the sequalae of a medical condition usually peripheral artery > > > disease. > > > > Well, you'll certainly never need it for sex. > Gee again with the potty mouth. SUch passes civil discourse amongst > the liberals?? The word "sex" is potty mouth? -- Tea Party Patriots is to Patriotism as People's Democratic Republic is to Democracy.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Kurt Ullman <kurtullman@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-03-24 13:54 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <RM-dnbOwxL_Dl_PSnZ2dnUVZ_tednZ2d@earthlink.com> |
| In reply to | #22769 |
In article <michelle-D2CADB.10005424032012@news.eternal-september.org>,
Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> wrote:
>
> The law that the GOP wants to put into effect would require the employee
> have a note from her doctor declaring that the prescription is not for
> birth control.
>
FOR the insurance company.
> > > > BTW: Viagra is a given under my scenario since it is used to treat
> > > > the sequalae of a medical condition usually peripheral artery
> > > > disease.
> > >
> > > Well, you'll certainly never need it for sex.
> > Gee again with the potty mouth. SUch passes civil discourse amongst
> > the liberals??
>
> The word "sex" is potty mouth?
With the other really potty mouth he said to me earlier. Context, my
friend, context. (g).
--
People thought cybersex was a safe alternative,
until patients started presenting with sexually
acquired carpal tunnel syndrome.-Howard Berkowitz
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-03-24 19:47 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <michelle-0E02D4.19473724032012@news.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #22778 |
In article <RM-dnbOwxL_Dl_PSnZ2dnUVZ_tednZ2d@earthlink.com>, Kurt Ullman <kurtullman@yahoo.com> wrote: > > The law that the GOP wants to put into effect would require the > > employee have a note from her doctor declaring that the prescription > > is not for birth control. > > > FOR the insurance company. Required by the employer. > > > > Well, you'll certainly never need it for sex. > > > Gee again with the potty mouth. SUch passes civil discourse amongst > > > the liberals?? > > > > The word "sex" is potty mouth? > With the other really potty mouth he said to me earlier. Context, my > friend, context. (g). "Jackass" is potty mouth? Did you know there's a TV show and a movie based on the show with that word as their name? You're stretching. -- Tea Party Patriots is to Patriotism as People's Democratic Republic is to Democracy.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Kurt Ullman <kurtullman@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-03-25 08:58 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <CMudndZko83oi_LSnZ2dnUVZ_gadnZ2d@earthlink.com> |
| In reply to | #22829 |
In article <michelle-0E02D4.19473724032012@news.eternal-september.org>,
Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> wrote:
> In article <RM-dnbOwxL_Dl_PSnZ2dnUVZ_tednZ2d@earthlink.com>,
> Kurt Ullman <kurtullman@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > The law that the GOP wants to put into effect would require the
> > > employee have a note from her doctor declaring that the prescription
> > > is not for birth control.
> > >
> > FOR the insurance company.
>
> Required by the employer.
But the original suggestion was that the employer would some how
know about it. They wouldn't, so there is no privacy issue as was being
raised.
Besides the physician has to show the reason for EVERY prescription
they make since pretty much every insurance from MCare to East Bugface
Health and Casualty require information on medical necessity before
paying for anything.
>
--
People thought cybersex was a safe alternative,
until patients started presenting with sexually
acquired carpal tunnel syndrome.-Howard Berkowitz
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-03-25 06:23 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <michelle-466DF2.06231625032012@news.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #22851 |
In article <CMudndZko83oi_LSnZ2dnUVZ_gadnZ2d@earthlink.com>, Kurt Ullman <kurtullman@yahoo.com> wrote: > Besides the physician has to show the reason for EVERY prescription they > make since pretty much every insurance from MCare to East Bugface Health > and Casualty require information on medical necessity before paying for > anything. Er, no. When I had employer-sponsored health insurance, that was never a requirement. I gave the pharmacy the prescription, and they filled it, billing the insurance company for the remainder after my copay. When the doctor billed the insurance company, all she did was fill in the code numbers to indicate what conditions were treated, but there were no details, and nothing mentioned about what, if any, scripts she had given me. -- Tea Party Patriots is to Patriotism as People's Democratic Republic is to Democracy.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 3 of 10 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 … 10 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.sys.mac.system
csiph-web