Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.3 4.3bsd-beta 6/6/85; site decwrl.DEC.COM Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!decwrl!dec-rhea!dec-tonto!early From: early@tonto.DEC (the higher we climb, the better the view) Newsgroups: net.consumers Subject: re: basic phone service for poor/old Message-ID: <279@decwrl.DEC.COM> Date: Mon, 6-Jan-86 11:06:47 EST Article-I.D.: decwrl.279 Posted: Mon Jan 6 11:06:47 1986 Date-Received: Tue, 7-Jan-86 06:52:09 EST Sender: daemon@decwrl.DEC.COM Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation Lines: 91 Newsgroups: net.consumers Path: decwrl!pyramid!ut-sally!seismo!harvard!bu-cs!bzs Subject: Re: Long Distance >>...add the coming rate increases for my >>basic service and for *forced* charity I begin to wonder if I >>really need a telephone. >The thought, for example, of an elderly or invalid person not being >able to afford a phone and hence access to emergency services should >be disturbing, it is not a consumer issue except perhaps to the hard >of heart. >Sorry, but I find views like this disturbing. I find views like this disturbing, for these reasons: 1) If I understand you correctly, if very old and very poor people are granted free 'basic' telephone service; that means every old and indigent person will be entitled to 'their' personal free phone, regardless of their living arrangements. ( I am extending the logic, because in places like Massachusetts 'free' services tend to become extended,and it's the working class that tends to pay the bills, along with the TAXABLE corporations. I highlight taxable, because BU isn't. 2) Under what conditions do you propose "free" phone service ? 3) I think the issue is to complex to be adequately discussed in a few lines at everyone elses' expense. I think you have a good idea, but I think it should be tied to TOTAL assets, and the phone must be directed to something like a 911 number, and not permit any calls except emergency calls, to prevent systematic abuses. (Maybe this belongs in net.med.pay.pay.pay) >crushing pain in your chest you better have a $10 bill in your hand >when you knock on *my* door to call for help. >-Barry Shein, Boston University This sounds like you are a medical doctor. The latest fad is not to treat patients you haven't previously qualified, unless employed in the ER at a local hospital. I've also been denied treatment (for a very sick child) at my *favorite* clinic because I didn't have the $20.00 to pay in advance. Newsgroups: net.consumers Path: decwrl!pyramid!ut-sally!seismo!harvard!bu-cs!bzs Subject: Re: Cheap copies of brand-name perfumes >the govt. that allows them to lie about this. This is true even >of expensive, big name perfumes (I heard from an old-timer that . . >at IFF, that the coffee industry was granted that little lie during >WWII to keep people happy with second-rate coffee and no one has A recent news release comes to mind when I read this aspect about the perfume industry. The release has to do with two drugs, both of which I am more than familiar as a user. The two drugs are: Darvon, and Dimetapp. When the drug companies seemed to have an exclusivity of marketing share, they were only available by prescription, and even with the advent of many generic brands, they were still only available by prescription... for awhile. The news release, is paraphrased as follows: " Dimetapp and Darvon will now be available as over the counter drugs" . Neat ! Sort of kills profits for the generic manufacturers. As I understand it, these "drugs" were only available by prescription (according to FDA). Now that they've been proliferated as a generic drug, it's now safe enough for counter sales everywhere. Does the FDA and certain drug companies make deals ? Makes me wonder. Like, what happened to the 'hot dog ingredients' on their label ? bob early (Dec E-Net) TONTO::EARLY) (UUCP) decvax!decwrl!dec-rhea!tonto!early "I laugh, lest I cry " -anon.-