Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: Eeyore on 10 Nov 2006 10:29 jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > >What real objection do you have to an 'NHS' ? > > It's unconstitutional. In what way ? > [emoticon now retreats into its > tornado cellar] It is also a waste of resources, ineffcient, How do you 'know' it's a waste ? > and hands over all approvals to politicians and bureaucrats. As opposed to insurance companies. The everyday decisions in the NHS aren't made by politicians anyway ! Since when was an insurance company not a bureacracy too ? Graham
From: lucasea on 10 Nov 2006 10:46 <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message news:ej22jn$8qk_012(a)s995.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... > > Since my experiences were with systems that didn't work, Yes, that would be with the current US system. Why do you assume that a nationalized health care would be the same, and have the same problems? We have heard testimony from at least 3 people in this discussion alone, to the contrary. > I'm > not going to dump that data. You hand me some comment you got > from some web site, What comment did I get "from some web site?"...I mean, other than the data that the UK system is far, far less expensive, when all costs are included, than our current system. > and expect do dump actual experience in favor > of your offishal data? Again, what *actual* experience have you had with a nationalized healthcare system...I'm not talking about projections based on your assumption that it will be "just like the current US system, only more so." Eric Lucas
From: lucasea on 10 Nov 2006 10:50 <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message news:ej22rc$8qk_013(a)s995.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... > In article <eivs0e$vor$4(a)leto.cc.emory.edu>, > lparker(a)emory.edu (Lloyd Parker) wrote: > >>What good are the other rights if you're dead? > > Reread the sentence. They are only talking about insurance > being a right, not getting medical care. There is a difference. Well, the difference would be kinda moot to the millions of Americans who do not have insurance and cannot afford medical care, now wouldn't it? Eric Lucas
From: lucasea on 10 Nov 2006 10:51 <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message news:ej22vn$8qk_014(a)s995.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... > > It is decreasing towards zero as conversion to a few payers > increases. What do you think will happen when the few payers > become one? When that one payer doesn't have the profit motive that's currently driving prices? Everybody will have access. Check out the cost (and I'm talking the total cost to society) and availability of the UK system versus ours. I have posted the data. Did you just choose to ignore it, too? Eric Lucas
From: lucasea on 10 Nov 2006 10:53
<jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message news:ej234l$8qk_015(a)s995.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... > > The same thing happened to medical pots of money contributed > by employees and their employers. The pool of monies got transformed > to insurance companies. Now you're catching on. Private insurance companies have profit motive. Government bodies that provide for health care don't. Eric Lucas |