Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: lucasea on 11 Nov 2006 01:58 "unsettled" <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote in message news:3070a$45554ce3$4fe71df$2923(a)DIALUPUSA.NET... > Ben Newsam wrote: > >> 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? > > Since you asked. > > My insurance premiums are insufficient to cover my > medical expenses. I am at a slight loss in the > medicine coverage if I use Canadian pricing as > the basis, but way ahead if I use USA prices. I > pay for the coverage because it is quite likely > I'll need more as I age and there's a penalty if > one doesn't sign on when it becomes available to > them. > > Now reread what I wrote and take the narrow meaning: > "He (add emphasis to that word) also doesn't seem > to mind...." > > For the most part private US insurance severely > limits benefits available for addictions and mental > health issues. I can pretty much guarantee that we > won't do lung translants for folks still smoking. A lung transplant would be cheap compared to what they *do* do for smokers (ex *and* current). Lifelon treatments for emphysema. Years and years of cancer treatments, including expensive chemo and radiation treatments, which morph into more and more expensive as the patient very slowly dies. Expensive treatments for the heart disease caused by smoking, including bypass surgery, heart transplants, and other forms of open-heart surgery.
From: jmfbahciv on 11 Nov 2006 07:04 In article <MPG.1fbe66ec423f59d8989ae3(a)news.individual.net>, krw <krw(a)att.bizzzz> wrote: >In article <G0U4h.2000$6t.1433(a)newssvr11.news.prodigy.com>, >lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net says... >> >> "krw" <krw(a)att.bizzzz> wrote in message >> news:MPG.1fbdbbbe595b5dcf989adc(a)news.individual.net... >> > >> > Properly treated the wood will even live under water. Many piers >> > are made out of the stuff, and it's a lot better than creosote. >> > IIRC, it's still allowed for ground contact/underground/underwater >> > use, but not for homeowners (decks and such). >> >> My understanding was that its production was outlawed for any purpose, but >> you could be right--I only have direct knowledge of home use. > >I'm not sure either, but I seem to remember that it's still >available for marine use. > >> > The recycled plastic >> > products are likly a better idea anyway. >> >> Almost certainly, although its use as surface boards on decks has been a >> problem--it gets really slippery when it's wet. > >"Trex", and the like, doesn't look like it would be slippery. > Now feel it. Falling down on it, as kids will do, is the equivalent of falling on bricks. That hurts. /BAH
From: jmfbahciv on 11 Nov 2006 07:18 In article <t915h.3582$IR4.2252(a)newssvr25.news.prodigy.net>, <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: > ><jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message >news:ej22jn$8qk_012(a)s995.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... >> >> Since my experiences were with systems that didn't work, > >Yes, that would be with the current US system. Why do you assume that a >nationalized health care would be the same, and have the same problems? We >have heard testimony from at least 3 people in this discussion alone, to the >contrary. I'm a software developer. Code that has a bug on my development machine will never get fixed if I distribute the same code on all my customers' machines. All I've done is make the mess so big, it can't be solved. <snip> /BAH
From: jmfbahciv on 11 Nov 2006 07:19 In article <Uc15h.3583$IR4.3435(a)newssvr25.news.prodigy.net>, <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: > ><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? Now think about why they can't afford it. /BAH
From: jmfbahciv on 11 Nov 2006 07:24
In article <kkcal2ll82lsuqk1pk5uanjcat876o49ei(a)4ax.com>, Ben Newsam <ben.newsam(a)ukonline.co.uk> wrote: >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. And how do you find a doctor? Are you assigned to a doctor who has to OK other specialists' services? Can you walk into a cardiologist's office and get treated or do you have to be "vetted" through a series of physicians' offices and labs to get to that heart doctor? /BAH |