Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: jmfbahciv on 11 Nov 2006 07:27 In article <Wf15h.3585$IR4.3293(a)newssvr25.news.prodigy.net>, <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. Right. There is no competition and no check on 100% corruption. Most monies will go to patronage, outright stealing and administration costs. None will end up buying the real service. /BAH
From: jmfbahciv on 11 Nov 2006 07:28 In article <u-2dnbLwyb97osjYnZ2dnUVZ8sOdnZ2d(a)pipex.net>, "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: > >"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... > > You would spend $500 on a cat operation? ($ is merely used to indicate money and not type of currency). /BAH
From: jmfbahciv on 11 Nov 2006 07:30 In article <X_idnZIHpJT6VcnYRVnyvg(a)pipex.net>, "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: > ><jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message >news:ej234l$8qk_015(a)s995.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... >> In article <455368BB.5A9A6A6C(a)hotmail.com>, >> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> >>>lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net wrote: >>> >>>> <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message >>>> > <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: >>>> >>>> >>And the first reason is going to become ubiquitous as industry is less >> and >>>> >>less willing to pay for the health care of its employees. >>>> > >>>> > Industry can't afford it. >>>> >>>> Yes, you are correct. It doesn't change the fact that the number of >> people >>>> actually having effective health insurance under the current system in >>>> this >>>> country is rapidly decreasing toward a limit of zero. >>> >>>Something similar is happening here wrt pensions too. >>> >>>I don't think private companies are up to the task of providing critical >>>services like this very well. >> >> Ours are, too. That's because the pensions are transforming >> from a collected pot of money by the employees into an insurance >> policy. It's no longer real money. >> >> The same thing happened to medical pots of money contributed >> by employees and their employers. The pool of monies got transformed >> to insurance companies. > >Which is why a state run system is "better." Part of the problem in the UK >is our pensions got "privatised" and the providers have to turn a profit. There is still competition at the level of insurance companies. Remove that and available medical care will diminish. None of those service providers are going to work at minimum wage. /BAH
From: jmfbahciv on 11 Nov 2006 07:36 In article <45536686.8244713C(a)hotmail.com>, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > >> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >> >> hill(a)rowland.org wrote: >> >> >Winfield Hill wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> 4200 postings and still going strong. Amazing. >> >> > >> >> > Wow, now 7200 posts and still going strong. And most >> >> > of the posts were under the original subject title. This >> >> > must be some kind of a record. >> >> >> >> I don't think so. >> >> >> >> >Certainly it's a stress >> >> > test for the Google Groups web-page display code, etc. >> >> >> >> KEWL!!!! Has there been any glitches? >> > >> >None I'm aware of. >> > >> >7360 posts and counting. >> >> You can't know the correct count. If their counting mechanisms are >> wrong or there's an exclusion to the count, you can't tell if >> there's a mistake. This is a problem I've been spending time >> thinking about. How do you detect something is missing if >> you don't see it and haven't been told it exists? If I solve >> this one, the comm world will give me a gold star. > >Since there'e no simple solution I don't waste time worrying about it. We were paid to solve non-simple solutions. > >It obviously refers to the number of posts on Google's own servers. 7556 right >now. I realize that. I was just curious if there had been any glitches with their software. /BAH
From: John Fields on 11 Nov 2006 07:44
On Fri, 10 Nov 2006 21:22:21 GMT, <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: > >"T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote in message >news:FuudnUJttc5DecnYRVnyiA(a)pipex.net... >> >> "John Fields" <jfields(a)austininstruments.com> wrote in message >> news:1ko8l25obt73evog3kn6g81jeimhc27str(a)4ax.com... >> >>>>When Saddam was "arrested," why did the occupation forces remain? >>> >>> --- >>> 1. To make sure the country wouldn't fall into worse hands than >>> Saddam Hussein's. >> >> Interesting argument. I assume from this that self determination is not an >> option in your opinion. > >In fact, many Iraqis seem to think it *did* fall into worse hands than >Saddam Husseins.... --- I'm sure. --- >>> 2. To rebuild the country. >> >> Iran has made the same claims. Why does the US have more right to do this >> than the Iranians? >> >>> 3. To help give the folks there a chance to govern themselves. >> >> You need to leave to do that. When a country is occupied it is not >> governing itself. What you may mean here is to give the folks the chance >> to set up an acceptable government. > >I wonder if he can honestly not see the hypocrisy in 3. --- Sounds to me like you might have a little voluntary reading comprehension problem. -- JF |