Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: Eeyore on 11 Nov 2006 15:08 unsettled wrote: > JoeBloe wrote: > > On Sat, 11 Nov 2006 15:53:05 GMT, <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> Gave us: > > > >> You may not, but I expect better of my > >>president and of the leader of the free world. > > > > All of our current operations are only the start. Yes, it was > > needed, and yes it is going to continue until all of the remaining > > harbingers of hate and destruction are themselves put down. > > "We've only just begun...." And let me see..... To 'them' you yourselves must seem like " harbingers of hate and destruction ". Can you even begin to see the logical and inevitable outcome of this ? Graham
From: Eeyore on 11 Nov 2006 15:17 lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net wrote: > "Ben Newsam" <ben.newsam(a)ukonline.co.uk> wrote in message > > > > (or if immobile, I ask to be visited at home), > > Is this a standard form of care in the UK? We haven't had doctors in > general make house-calls here in the US for at least 40 years. As a kid it was quite normal for the doctor to come out to visit you if you had an illness. I've only had it happen once as an adult when I had a serious fever. He took a blood sample and delivered it himself to the lab. It *wasn't* malaria thankfully. It was pneumonia though. Graham
From: T Wake on 11 Nov 2006 15:19 <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message news:ej4foj$8ss_009(a)s977.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... > 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. Unfounded assumption. > None of > those service providers are going to work at minimum wage. They don't in the UK.
From: T Wake on 11 Nov 2006 15:23 <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? Well in my case, there is a GP practice about 4 miles away. If I was somewhere else and it was urgent I would go to see the nearest doctor. > Are you assigned to a doctor > who has to OK other specialists' services? Not in the manner you mean. The doctor has to OK the medical need for the specialist, but it really shouldn't be any other way. > 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? If I need to be treated by a cardiologist I will be. The vetting process may well exist but not in the manner you hope to imply here. Patients are assessed as to the clinical need for treatment they have. If the patient needs to see a cardiologist, s/he gets to see one. Are you implying that access to treatment should be on the basis of what the patient _thinks_ they need and can afford, rather than what the doctor thinks is the best treatment?
From: T Wake on 11 Nov 2006 15:38
"Ben Newsam" <ben.newsam(a)ukonline.co.uk> wrote in message news:gegal2hhh3emgjmpgfp442i0d9e857l7qn(a)4ax.com... > On Fri, 10 Nov 2006 19:13:37 -0000, "T Wake" > <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: > >>"Ben Newsam" <ben.newsam(a)ukonline.co.uk> wrote in message >>news:28d7l29uofp8nriijbl2h4mvntbaqrvei4(a)4ax.com... >>> Don't forget the recent partial removal of the "double jeopardy" rules >>> too. Again, in that particular case I tend to agree with the changes. >> >>Yes, in that case I agree. The problem here is (obviously all this is >>IMHO) >>that law is supposed to be impartial and unemotional. In the UK we change >>laws to pander to the press and public opinion. Where do they draw the >>line. >> >>The changes to double jeopardy in the Steven Lawrence case seem "fair" but >>the problem is trial two is likely to be a farce. How can you pick an >>impartial, unbiased jury when the case facts have already be pre-judged as >>guilty enough to allow a re-trial? > > I think the double jeopardy rules were changed after the 20 year > campaign by the amazing persistence of the victim's mother in this > case: > > http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/5144722.stm > > There was an interview with her on the radio, and I was struck by her > calm rationality and her refusal to give up. Ok, sorry. I had been reading about the changes to double jeopardy in the case of the Lawrence murder so I mistakenly assumed that is what you meant. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/1204449.stm) >>I suspect we both agree with the change to the law in Lawrence case >>because >>we have both decided the defendants are actually guilty. Does that not >>strike you as a strange way to run trials? > > I haven't decided anything about the Stephen Lawrence case, and in > fact know very little about it at all. Yes, sorry, I was mistaken. In the instance you cite above it is a harder call as to the law for double jeopardy, but it remains that a law has been changed because of emotional issues. While I don't know the ins and outs of the new legislation, unless is hinges on the defendant later admitting guilt I cant see how it is fair. While double jeopardy was a "law" it required the prosecution build the strongest possible case, knowing they only had one shot. I am not saying it _will_ happen but there is now the possibility of many smaller, poorly evidenced trials on the "off chance" that the jury will convict. Although it has the best intentions, this is a popularist law which has the potential of causing more harm than good. Another example is the recent trial of Nick Griffin (the leader of the BNP), in which a court has acquitted him of race hate. Now personally I find it shocking to acquit the likes of Griffin and it is somewhat similar to saying the Pope isn't Catholic but at the end of the day, whether I like it or not, he has been acquitted. Following this John Reid says current laws may need reviewing. Surely this is madness. John Reid has judged Griffin guilty and intends to change the laws until he can get a jury to think the same. Amazing line of legal logic IMHO. |