Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: Ben Newsam on 10 Nov 2006 21:20 On Fri, 10 Nov 2006 15:51:47 GMT, <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: > ><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. AFAIAC, the biggest advantage of our (UK) system isn't the quality of the service, although it is very good at day to day stuff like mending broken bits and plugging leaks, but the peace of mind that comes from not having to worry about whether one is covered or not. If you need to see a doctor, you go and see a doctor, and if you need treatment, you get it. It's as simple as that. Yes, of course the system is strapped for cash, and certain treatments and drugs aren't available on the National Health, but that will always be the case with whatever system is in place, whether public or private.
From: Ben Newsam on 10 Nov 2006 21:23 On Fri, 10 Nov 06 14:45:00 GMT, jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >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. Ha! Tell that to the Marines. They're nationalised, maybe they're unconstitutional too, lol. > [emoticon now retreats into its >tornado cellar] It is also a waste of resources, ineffcient, >and hands over all approvals to politicians and bureaucrats. And your system doesn't have bureaucrats? I suspect that the bureaucracy involved in deciding claims must be *huge*, whole layers of office staff processing paperwork that we simply don't have at all.
From: Ben Newsam on 10 Nov 2006 21:28 On Fri, 10 Nov 2006 11:02:02 -0600, unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: >He also doesn't seem to mind a large part of that going to >pay medical care for random strangers including those who >are getting medical care for their ongoing smoking and drug >addiction. Do you seriously believe that your insurance premiums are used only to fund *your* medical needs?
From: T Wake on 10 Nov 2006 22:08 "JoeBloe" <joebloe(a)thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote in message news:g1eal2dosisofr40ccnm98kcgi8pbtiar0(a)4ax.com... > On Fri, 10 Nov 2006 05:22:55 +0000 (UTC), kensmith(a)green.rahul.net > (Ken Smith) Gave us: > >>In article <1ac67$4554024d$4fe76f5$27303(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, >>unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: >>>Ken Smith wrote: >>> >>>> In article <f4p7l21a400mq09lf26tcq86s8gkv3q479(a)4ax.com>, >>>> JoeBloe <joebloe(a)nosuchplace.org> wrote: >>>> [....] >>>> >>>>> Name a foreign part in the M1 Abrams. >>>> >>>> >>>> Q401 >>>> >>>> That was easy. >>>> >>>> >>>Silliness, goofy behavior, excitability, inappropriate >>>humor ... the first signs of bipolar disorder. >> >>Yes, I think you may be right. You should see a doctor, I hear that have >>drugs for it these days. >> >>BTW: Those in the sci.electronics.design group will have understood the >>joke more thoroughly than others. For those: Q401 would be a transistor >>and it is very unlikely that there are no transistors in the M1 that are >>made outside the country. >> > > A transistor is a discreet component. A complete circuit card > assembly would be more like "a part". > > Everyone knows that chips and such are made in other lands. That > doesn't make them not ours however. > > Even Western Digital has its products made and assembled elsewhere, > but it is still an American company. So what?
From: T Wake on 10 Nov 2006 22:13
"Ben Newsam" <ben.newsam(a)ukonline.co.uk> wrote in message news:8bcal29ia4lnc75lbuo3p1b5l83etn3ive(a)4ax.com... > On Fri, 10 Nov 2006 15:53:26 GMT, <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: >><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. > > I have often wondered, re insurance, if I wouldn't get a better deal > by going down the local betting shop. In other words, what odds might > I get on betting that my house will get burgled in the next year? Interesting one - might be worth trying! Lots of insurance on electrical goods is madness, and you tend to expect that. Cat insurance is also insane - some policies ask for in the region of ?10 pcm per cat and wont pay for the first ?50. If you take the money and put it in a savings account you get the best of both worlds, as long as you have the emergency fund for when it needs a ?500 operation... |