From: tony cooper on
On Mon, 3 May 2010 19:45:50 -0400, "Peter"
<peternew(a)nospamoptonline.net> wrote:

>"Neil Harrington" <never(a)home.com> wrote in message
>news:sbSdnV7ggokaQ0DWnZ2dnUVZ_u-dnZ2d(a)giganews.com...
>>
>
>> Yes, within reasonable limits. Some conditions are astronomically
>> expensive to treat, and the money has to come from somewhere. Insurance
>> companies on average have only about a 3.5% profit margin, so despite the
>> steady complaints from Obama & Co. about "greedy insurance companies,"
>> there is really not much to be saved by squeezing them harder.
>
>3.5% of what number?
>Can you tell me how these profits are calculated?
>what profits are you referring to?
>Profits calculated for stockholder purposes/
>Profits calculated for regulatory rate making purposes?
>Profits calculated for tax purposes?
>You do realize they are not all the same. Please tell me how contract
>acquisition costs are treated in calculating your profit margin.
>How are reinsurance treaties and executive compensating figured into the
>equation?
>
>Inquiring minds want to know. Please don't be like others and tell me to
>research the answer. I already know and just need to know if we are
>discussing the same thing.

Yes. The way to get to a measly 3% profit margin is to pay the
executives outrageous salaries and bonuses.
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
From: Chris Malcolm on
In rec.photo.digital.slr-systems tony cooper <tony_cooper213(a)earthlink.net> wrote:
> On Mon, 03 May 2010 19:29:24 -0400, tony cooper
> <tony_cooper213(a)earthlink.net> wrote:
>>On Sun, 2 May 2010 22:48:31 -0700, Savageduck
>><savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
>>>On 2010-05-02 22:31:53 -0700, tony cooper <tony_cooper213(a)earthlink.net> said:
>>>> On Sun, 2 May 2010 21:03:49 -0700, Savageduck
>>>> <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:

>>>>> Where do you want to start? The Papacy, The College of Cardinals,
>>>>
>>>> Get serious, Duck. Who has any idea of what the College of Cardinals
>>>> do except when its puff-of-smoke-time?
>>>
>>>They play upper management to the diocese.
>>
>>A Cardinal, in the Catholic church, is a level of the hierarchy of the
>>church. A Cardinal may be in charge of a diocese or an archdiocese.
>>All Cardinals are members of the College of Cardinals, but the College
>>is only convened on the death of a Pope or when the Pope summons them
>>for a consistory (a special meeting). That's a rare event.

> Hoist on my own petard. I should not of capitalized the word
> "cardinal" above. The word is capitalized when it is used as part of
> a title (Cardinal Jones or College of Cardinals) but not when it
> refers to a job description.

I guess that must "of" been one of those new double barrelled petards
:-)

--
Chris Malcolm
From: Bill Graham on

"Alan" <alan.browne(a)gmail.com> wrote in message
news:f225edd4-e848-48fe-9e05-cb93baa023a1(a)v18g2000vbc.googlegroups.com...
On May 3, 5:07 am, "Atheist Chaplain" <abu...(a)cia.gov> wrote:

Message not aimed at any_one.

This is certainly true.....You've got almost all of us kill filed.....:^)

From: Bill Graham on

"Peter" <peternew(a)nospamoptonline.net> wrote in message
news:4bdf65ad$0$27713$8f2e0ebb(a)news.shared-secrets.com...
> "tony cooper" <tony_cooper213(a)earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:l0jst5d49c4iv5u2movb6d44mnfpjrhc3q(a)4ax.com...
>> On Sun, 2 May 2010 21:03:49 -0700, Savageduck
>> <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> You do know that "bigotry" is the obstinate or intolerant devotion to
>>>> one's own opinions and prejudices? Atheists who are intolerant of the
>>>> religious can be bigots.
>>>
>>>Agreed.
>>>I believe those of faith are free to worship as they please.
>>
>> The gist of your rant was that the "betrayed" should abandon their
>> religion. If they want to continue to be a member of that religion,
>> even though that religion holds them to be wrong on this issue,
>> shouldn't they be free to worship as they please? Where is your
>> tolerance?
>>
>>>>> I find myself comfortable as an atheist, not having to favor one
>>>>> religion over another.
>>>>
>>>> So am I. However, I would never suggest to someone else that they
>>>> should leave their religion or question why they don't. That seems
>>>> exceedingly presumptious to me.
>>>
>>>I would only suggest that move if the person in question is being
>>>tormented by that religion and leaving the religion is the only action
>>>which makes sense.
>>
>> Makes sense to who? It doesn't make a damn bit of difference if it
>> makes sense or not to you. It's what makes sense to *them* that
>> counts.
>>
>> The hypocrisy of the whole thing is that we have the devoutly
>> religious who want the rest of us to do as they want, and then we have
>> the unreligious who want the religious people to change.
>>
>> I don't really see a difference between a bible-thumper who says "I
>> suggest you become religious" and a nonreligious person saying "I
>> suggest you leave your religion". They are both proselytizing.
>>
> Agreed. In this small group we have a professed atheist who worships. In
> the vast majority of his posts he refers to his money.
>
> --
> Peter
Worshiping money and wanting your government to take it away from you and
give it to someone else are two different things. I don't worship money. I
simply worked and saved and invested a percentage of it in American business
for most of my life, and I resent it when my government steals it to give to
those who didn't. If you call that, "worshiping" money, then I am guilty as
charged.

From: Gill Collins on
On Mon, 3 May 2010 23:29:18 -0700, "Bill Graham" <weg9(a)comcast.net> wrote:

>
>"Peter" <peternew(a)nospamoptonline.net> wrote in message
>news:4bdf65ad$0$27713$8f2e0ebb(a)news.shared-secrets.com...
>> "tony cooper" <tony_cooper213(a)earthlink.net> wrote in message
>> news:l0jst5d49c4iv5u2movb6d44mnfpjrhc3q(a)4ax.com...
>>> On Sun, 2 May 2010 21:03:49 -0700, Savageduck
>>> <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>> You do know that "bigotry" is the obstinate or intolerant devotion to
>>>>> one's own opinions and prejudices? Atheists who are intolerant of the
>>>>> religious can be bigots.
>>>>
>>>>Agreed.
>>>>I believe those of faith are free to worship as they please.
>>>
>>> The gist of your rant was that the "betrayed" should abandon their
>>> religion. If they want to continue to be a member of that religion,
>>> even though that religion holds them to be wrong on this issue,
>>> shouldn't they be free to worship as they please? Where is your
>>> tolerance?
>>>
>>>>>> I find myself comfortable as an atheist, not having to favor one
>>>>>> religion over another.
>>>>>
>>>>> So am I. However, I would never suggest to someone else that they
>>>>> should leave their religion or question why they don't. That seems
>>>>> exceedingly presumptious to me.
>>>>
>>>>I would only suggest that move if the person in question is being
>>>>tormented by that religion and leaving the religion is the only action
>>>>which makes sense.
>>>
>>> Makes sense to who? It doesn't make a damn bit of difference if it
>>> makes sense or not to you. It's what makes sense to *them* that
>>> counts.
>>>
>>> The hypocrisy of the whole thing is that we have the devoutly
>>> religious who want the rest of us to do as they want, and then we have
>>> the unreligious who want the religious people to change.
>>>
>>> I don't really see a difference between a bible-thumper who says "I
>>> suggest you become religious" and a nonreligious person saying "I
>>> suggest you leave your religion". They are both proselytizing.
>>>
>> Agreed. In this small group we have a professed atheist who worships. In
>> the vast majority of his posts he refers to his money.
>>
>> --
>> Peter
>Worshiping money and wanting your government to take it away from you and
>give it to someone else are two different things. I don't worship money. I
>simply worked and saved and invested a percentage of it in American business
>for most of my life, and I resent it when my government steals it to give to
>those who didn't. If you call that, "worshiping" money, then I am guilty as
>charged.

But money has only as much value as you believe it to have. Are you trying
to tell us that someone is believing that their value of "money" has more
faith in it than your value in money?

Tsk tsk. where's your faith in the value of YOUR money?

A tad insecure, are you not? So much for "faith", eh?