Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: John Fields on 11 Nov 2006 09:28 On Fri, 10 Nov 2006 23:23:23 +0000, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > >lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net wrote: > >> "John Fields" <jfields(a)austininstruments.com> wrote in message >> news:c8u9l2p15huilmdlqg8okct65cdt6ap5hm(a)4ax.com... >> > >> >Not that we're >> > lily-white, but we don't exactly go around skewering babies for >> > snacks either. >> >> How's that for damnation by faint praise? How far we've fallen from our >> high ideals--from "Give me liberty or give me death!" and "E pluribus unum" >> to "At least we don't skewer babies for snacks!" > >Fields has warranted a nickname. > >Impaler ! > >Graham --- No doubt that came to mind because of your often finding yourself dangling from the end of my lance. -- JF
From: lucasea on 11 Nov 2006 09:28 <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message news:ej4feq$8ss_006(a)s977.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... > 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? Those problems you mention are problems with the *current* US system. To imply we cannot change from the current system because it has problems is the most idiotic thing I've ever heard. Eric Lucas
From: lucasea on 11 Nov 2006 09:29 <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message news:ej4fio$8ss_007(a)s977.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... > In article <Wf15h.3585$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. Gee, that doesn't seem to have happened in Canada and the UK. Perhaps you're implying that Americans are less ethical and honest than Brits or Canadians? Eric Lucas
From: Michael A. Terrell on 11 Nov 2006 09:30 jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > > In article <c759l25a236u8bi3r7r84v9q4quu5po7vu(a)4ax.com>, > John Fields <jfields(a)austininstruments.com> wrote: > >On Fri, 10 Nov 06 14:10:42 GMT, jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > > > >>In article <45547A34.B650DD1F(a)earthlink.net>, > >> "Michael A. Terrell" <mike.terrell(a)earthlink.net> wrote: > >>>jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > >>>> > >>>> In article <0j17l2dnu2acrl45la9t243up4ctu00ebp(a)4ax.com>, > >>>> John Fields <jfields(a)austininstruments.com> wrote: > >>>> >On Thu, 09 Nov 2006 17:01:39 +0000, Eeyore > >>>> ><rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > >>>> > > >>>> >> > >>>> >> > >>>> >>jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > >>>> >> > >>>> >>> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > >>>> >>> >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > >>>> >>> > > >>>> >>> >> In addition, people burn the wood that is laced with arsenic. > >>>> >>> > > >>>> >>> >What kind of wood is laced with arsenic ? > >>>> >>> > >>>> >>> Any wood you want to prevent termintes from eating. > >>>> >> > >>>> >>I see. > >>>> >> > >>>> >>Luckily we don't have that problem here. We do get wood rot though. ! > >>>> > > >>>> >--- > >>>> >Yes, I've noticed that from your posts. > >>>> > >>>> Oh, stuff it. He's talking nice and you still have to slam him. > >>>> > >>>> /BAH > >>> > >>> > >>> You are only reading him in this thread. If you read more of his > >>>output to SED, you would understand. > >>> > >>Which him? Fields or the donkey? :-) > > > >--- > >Either. Really! :-) > > Ah, so you're the PITA type. Are you of Royal flavor of just > the plain variety. > > /BAH I would trust John a hell of a lot more than anything spouted by the Demeneted Donkey. -- Service to my country? Been there, Done that, and I've got my DD214 to prove it. Member of DAV #85. Michael A. Terrell Central Florida
From: John Fields on 11 Nov 2006 09:32
On Fri, 10 Nov 2006 23:26:47 GMT, Jonathan Kirwan <jkirwan(a)easystreet.com> wrote: >On Fri, 10 Nov 2006 23:23:23 +0000, Eeyore ><rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > >>lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net wrote: >> >>> "John Fields" <jfields(a)austininstruments.com> wrote in message >>> news:c8u9l2p15huilmdlqg8okct65cdt6ap5hm(a)4ax.com... >>> > >>> >Not that we're >>> > lily-white, but we don't exactly go around skewering babies for >>> > snacks either. >>> >>> How's that for damnation by faint praise? How far we've fallen from our >>> high ideals--from "Give me liberty or give me death!" and "E pluribus unum" >>> to "At least we don't skewer babies for snacks!" >> >>Fields has warranted a nickname. >> >>Impaler ! > >No, that would need to be 'almost Impaler.' Doesn't quite rank up >there with the best of them, yet. ;) --- I'm saving the good stuff for when I really need it. ;) -- JF |