Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: lucasea on 10 Nov 2006 10:55 <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message news:ej239c$8qk_016(a)s995.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... > In article <4553638B.5813A8BC(a)hotmail.com>, > Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> >>What real objection do you have to an 'NHS' ? > > It's unconstitutional. [emoticon now retreats into its > tornado cellar] OK, this I gotta hear. Even if you don't believe that "provide for the common welfare" includes the health of the citizens of our country, then exactly what about setting up a national health care system is prohibited by the Constitution. This oughta be good. > It is also a waste of resources, ineffcient, > and hands over all approvals to politicians and bureaucrats. Gee, that's funny. Nationalized healthcare costs far less in Britain than our system does here. I've posted the data. Are you going to read it? Eric Lucas
From: lucasea on 10 Nov 2006 10:56 <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message news:ej23es$8qk_017(a)s995.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... > In article <B8ednfD6YLnR5M7YnZ2dnUVZ8sidnZ2d(a)pipex.net>, > "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: >> >><jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message >>news:eivd0d$8qk_021(a)s839.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... >>> In article <%Ul4h.9702$r12.8296(a)newssvr12.news.prodigy.com>, >>> <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: >>>> >>>><jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message >>>>news:eislgp$8qk_005(a)s995.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... >>>>> In article <45509EF9.BE1B73C6(a)hotmail.com>, >>>>> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote >>>>>>> ><jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message. >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> >> My state is going to have an all Democrat political system with >>>>>>> >> no checks nor balances. >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> >....and yet somehow you completely fail to see how unhealthy that >>>>>>> >has >>>>>>> >been >>>>>>> >for the entire country. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> You do need to learn about Consitution. There are checks and >>>>>>> balances working. >>>>>> >>>>>>Bush has been busy removing some of them. >>>>> >>>>> He can't. His powers are checked by the legislature and judicial >>>>> branches of our government. >>>> >>>>In an ideal world, yes. However, you'd better open your eyes, because >>>>Bush >>>>has been slowly dismantling a number of the checks-and-balances that the >>>>Constitution sets up. Wiretaps without warrants issued by the Judicial >>>>branch is one example. >>> >>> The last I heard that classification of wiretapping was checked >>> by judiciary. >>> >>>> There are several others that I can't think of right >>>>now because I'm tired and my memory is worthless before noon. >>> >>> Night owl. :-) I'm the opposite. Anti-Bushers like to trot >>> this wire tapping thing out to prove that he is a bad person. >>> It was part of the Patriot Act. >> >>The Patriot Act was not a "Good Thing(tm)." > > That's why Congress wrote in an expiration date. Which they subsequently obviated. Eric Lucas
From: lucasea on 10 Nov 2006 11:04 > jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > >> It causes all other prices to eventually go up, especially housing. >> It eliminates wage competition. Only at the bottom end. Everyone else still competes. >> People's real productivity is >> no longer measured nor rewarded with wage. I would argue that anybody who is still making minimum wage after any time at all in a job, isn't productive and doesn't deserve to be rewarded. >> >I saw it can be a slow as $5 an hour. >> > >> >Can anyone actually live on that ? >> >> $10k/year? Yes. That's not living. A person making the minimum wage for a full-time job would have to nearly double their earnings just to reach the poverty line. Eric Lucas
From: Eeyore on 10 Nov 2006 11:28 lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net wrote: > <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message > > 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? What really perplexes me about this issue is that Americans seemingly almost take some perverse pride in overpaying for limited medical cover ! Who else would cover pre-existing conditions FFS ? And to BAH - it's not *insurance* when the state does it. Graham
From: Eeyore on 10 Nov 2006 11:30
lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net wrote: > <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message > > > > 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? As a reminder. The cost per head of population in the UK for the NHS is ?1273 p.a. It's truly excellent value for money. And it has no exclusions or funny clauses. Graham |