Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: John Fields on 12 Nov 2006 08:43 On Sat, 11 Nov 2006 15:04:58 GMT, <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: > >"John Fields" <jfields(a)austininstruments.com> wrote in message >news:9cibl21gu2d8b4hfoo2trilmmcenvqnied(a)4ax.com... >> On Fri, 10 Nov 2006 21:37:20 -0000, "T Wake" >> <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: >> >> >>>What War on Christianity am I waging? I have no concerns as to the >>>religion >>>people practice in their own homes. I do object to being subject to >>>religion-derived law though. >> >> --- >> Like the prohibition of murder and theft? > > >You're confusing cause and effect. You assume that, because those are >religious and legal prohibitions, that they came to have legal status >because of their religious status. I would suggest that both are based on >the natural law that both murder and theft are bad for society. --- "Natural" law stems from religious roots. --- >Both religion and law codified this. --- Religion first. --- > You need to read what Franklin said again. >To paraphrase what he had to say about this, things that are proscribed by >religion aren't bad for you because they're proscribed...quite the opposite. >They are proscribed because they are bad for you. --- While that may be true, it has little to do with the fact that some laws are derived from religious prohibitions. Murder and theft are among them, and if you agree that their proscription is necessary, then your statement: "I do object to being subject to religion-derived law though." becomes largely nonsensical. Even more broadly, I maintain that _all_ law stems from religious roots, considering Jesus' command: ?All things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them.? from the Sermon on the Mount. The Mosaic law, which predates it, also contains the commandment: ?Whatever is hurtful to you, do not do to any other person.? Well, maybe not _all_ law, considering some is generated solely for the purpose of control... -- JF
From: jmfbahciv on 12 Nov 2006 08:41 In article <b4l5h.2383$6t.568(a)newssvr11.news.prodigy.com>, <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: > ><jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message >news:ej4f53$8ss_005(a)s977.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... >> In article <Uc15h.3583$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. > >Becuase of the inefficient system we currently have. Why not replace it >with something that is proven to be efficient. > >Your argument that we can't switch to a nationalized health care system >because we have problems with the current system is exactly 180 degrees out >of phase with reality. We need to switch to a nationalized health care >system precisely becuase we have problems with the current system. > The current problems are *caused* by having insuranace as the basis of medical service delivery. Forcing everybody to go the insurance route is flat out stupid. /BAH
From: jmfbahciv on 12 Nov 2006 08:44 In article <4555FCAF.C765CB5E(a)hotmail.com>, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > >> <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: >> ><jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message >> >> 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. > >Their wages are too low maybe ? They can't get a better paying job. Other >expenses come first out of necessity ? These would be typical reasons. No. Unfortunately, people's mindset is that they should get stuff for free or pay very little. When a generic doesn't work as well as the namebrand, people decide to stay with the generic because they don't have to pay as much for it. /BAH
From: jmfbahciv on 12 Nov 2006 08:45 In article <46l5h.2384$6t.336(a)newssvr11.news.prodigy.com>, <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: > ><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. > I am not implying that at all. I am stating that the cause of the problems is not the cure. /BAH
From: jmfbahciv on 12 Nov 2006 08:47
In article <4555FDA7.4A5AD572(a)hotmail.com>, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > >> 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 >> >>> >> >>> 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? > >In the phone book ? Or the Internet. >http://www.city-visitor.com/stalbans/doctors.html > > >> Are you assigned to a doctor >> who has to OK other specialists' services? > >Your GP ( general practicioner ) will refer you to >a specialist if you need one. >Once you see the specialist then he/she will >determine the course of treatment. That is the procedure in the US now. > > >> 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? > >Just your GP. So you do have to be vetted. You already have limited access. When, or if, your GP infrastructure goes to pieces, you'll have no access. /BAH |