Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: Ben Newsam on 11 Nov 2006 13:01 On Sat, 11 Nov 2006 08:24:02 -0600, unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: >Ben Newsam wrote: >> On Fri, 10 Nov 2006 21:44:29 -0600, unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> >> wrote: >> >> >>>It takes time to raise a country just as it does to raise a >>>child. In this case we're raising a country with far too >>>many guns and explosives and a very bad recent history >> >> >> This is the USA you're talking about, right? I am sure that there are >> more guns around in the US than anywhere else. > >You're wrong on all counts. Hardly. The only country I can find with a higher rate of gun ownership per head of population than the USA is Finland, and that's a tiny country, only 5 million population or so.
From: Ben Newsam on 11 Nov 2006 13:36 On Sat, 11 Nov 06 12:19:47 GMT, jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >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. Because they are at the bottom end of the social and economic scales. *You* think about it. Some people will *always* be at the bottom of those scales, and no matter the size of the overall cake, will *never* be able to afford the benefits that are avaiable further up. That's the whole point.
From: Ben Newsam on 11 Nov 2006 13:48 On Sat, 11 Nov 06 12:24:58 GMT, jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >In article <kkcal2ll82lsuqk1pk5uanjcat876o49ei(a)4ax.com>, > Ben Newsam <ben.newsam(a)ukonline.co.uk> wrote: >>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? You register with a GP, although you could get treatment anywhere as a "temporary patient". In towns and cities, most GPs work in bunches in "Health centres" rather than being singletons. For instance, my local surgery has about 6 doctors, a practice nurse, and a few other health workers and receptionists and so on. I make an appointment (or if immobile, I ask to be visited at home), and then if further treatment is required, an appointment is made at an outpatients' clinic at the hospital. Drugs are not paid for individually, but a standard charge is made for each prescription issued, although the young, the old and the unemployed do not pay that charge.
From: T Wake on 11 Nov 2006 14:06 <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message news:ej4h3k$8ss_013(a)s977.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... > In article <PwH4h.11589$B31.10737(a)newssvr27.news.prodigy.net>, > <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: >> >><jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message >>news:eive3d$8qk_028(a)s839.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... >>> In article <G1y4h.11017$r12.7330(a)newssvr12.news.prodigy.com>, >>> <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: >>>> >>>>"unsettled" <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote in message >>>>news:ebe9$45527d5d$49ecfec$17717(a)DIALUPUSA.NET... >>>>> Ben Newsam wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> On Wed, 08 Nov 2006 21:37:42 GMT, <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>>I also find it a thing of wonder how well the whole lot of them was >>>>>>>able >>>>>>>to foresee how American society might develop, how prescient they all >>>>>>>ended up being, and how well they took account of it in their ideas >>>>>>>about >>>>>>>how the country should be structured. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> They were a very wise bunch indeed. They also had the luxury of being >>>>>> able to start from scratch. >>>>> >>>>> Not at all. They had a population that demanded as >>>>> little change from what they were used to as >>>>> necessary. As time went on they reverted to much >>>>> of what they sought to escape when they came here. >>>> >>>>I think it was a good balance between keeping the parts of the English >>>>system that made sense, and preventing the transgressions that made them >>>>leave England. >>>> >>>>Or were you refering to the increasing imposition of religion on the >>>>government that has been happening off-and-on for the last 20 - 30 >>>>years? >>>> >>>>I will say it is a shame that the current US public is currently so >>>>fearful >>>>of change that no revolutionary new ideas have a chance. The debate >>>>over >>>>nationalized health care is an excellent example. >>> >>> What is worse is people deciding to fix what ain't broke. >> >>Something approaching 20% of the people in our country can't afford any >>sort >>of health care. To say that "ain't broke" is one of the most morally >>bereft >>statements I've heard in a very, very long time. Congratulations, you've >>demonstrated the lack of a conscience along with a lack of a brain. > > You are parroting politicians again. What is really happening > is that people, who do not have access to a GP, go to the > most expensive health care facility for treatment. > Now instead of concentrating on how they can't afford the most > expensive service, why not concentrate on why they cannot get > access to the usual general practioner's services. That is > the problem. And it has become exasperated by everything being > based on whether you have insurance or not. You present a strong case for the introduction of a nationalise healthcare system, where all have equal access to healthcare resources based on medical need.
From: T Wake on 11 Nov 2006 14:08
<jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message news:ej4he0$8ss_016(a)s977.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... > In article <tNydnc3qWa5H687YRVnyjg(a)pipex.net>, > "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: >> >><jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message >>news:eive3d$8qk_028(a)s839.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... >>> In article <G1y4h.11017$r12.7330(a)newssvr12.news.prodigy.com>, >>> <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: >>>> >>>>"unsettled" <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote in message >>>>news:ebe9$45527d5d$49ecfec$17717(a)DIALUPUSA.NET... >>>>> Ben Newsam wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> On Wed, 08 Nov 2006 21:37:42 GMT, <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>>I also find it a thing of wonder how well the whole lot of them was >>>>>>>able >>>>>>>to foresee how American society might develop, how prescient they all >>>>>>>ended up being, and how well they took account of it in their ideas >>>>>>>about >>>>>>>how the country should be structured. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> They were a very wise bunch indeed. They also had the luxury of being >>>>>> able to start from scratch. >>>>> >>>>> Not at all. They had a population that demanded as >>>>> little change from what they were used to as >>>>> necessary. As time went on they reverted to much >>>>> of what they sought to escape when they came here. >>>> >>>>I think it was a good balance between keeping the parts of the English >>>>system that made sense, and preventing the transgressions that made them >>>>leave England. >>>> >>>>Or were you refering to the increasing imposition of religion on the >>>>government that has been happening off-and-on for the last 20 - 30 >>>>years? >>>> >>>>I will say it is a shame that the current US public is currently so >>>>fearful >>>>of change that no revolutionary new ideas have a chance. The debate >>>>over >>>>nationalized health care is an excellent example. >>> >>> What is worse is people deciding to fix what ain't broke. >> >>So improving an operating system is a "no-no" in your book? >> >> > You are doing that misreading on purpose. Nonsense. You stated "What is worse is people deciding to fix what ain't broke." What was there to misread in that? Improving something which is working is "fixing something that ain't broke." Sadly, when you get caught out in a logical fallacy, your response is to accuse me of misreading. Shame on you. |