Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: jmfbahciv on 12 Nov 2006 09:40 In article <ej53mo$u2c$5(a)blue.rahul.net>, kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote: >In article <sq15h.3588$IR4.1362(a)newssvr25.news.prodigy.net>, > <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: >[....] >>I would argue that anybody who is still making minimum wage after any time >>at all in a job, isn't productive and doesn't deserve to be rewarded. > >There are some who are working at the limit of their ability. These >people still deserve enough of a wage to live on. I have, indirectly, >employed such a person in the past. He showed up for work on time and >remained for the required time, but instructions to him needed to be made >without subordinate clauses because he could not parse them. He is never >going to get promoted into management no matter how hard he works. The grocers hire people who think this way. They are their best workers. Now why do you assume that these types have to be paid only minimum wage and never get performance raises? /BAH
From: unsettled on 12 Nov 2006 09:47 jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > In article <4555F0FA.3C4FF876(a)hotmail.com>, > Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > >> >>unsettled wrote: >> >> >>>I am at a slight loss in the >>>medicine coverage if I use Canadian pricing as >>>the basis, but way ahead if I use USA prices. >> >>Why are the same medicines more expensive in the USA ? > > > We pay the development costs. And we generously sell the medicines for less overseas.
From: unsettled on 12 Nov 2006 10:05 jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > In article <maydndxa-ZzRrMvYnZ2dnUVZ8tednZ2d(a)pipex.net>, > "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> 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? >> >>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? > > > In the US, we have to be our own experts. Recently heard at the Mayo clinic, "The patient is his own best advocate." I have no doubt that's true everywhere.
From: John Fields on 12 Nov 2006 10:16 On Sat, 11 Nov 2006 15:49:14 +0000, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > >unsettled wrote: > >> I am at a slight loss in the >> medicine coverage if I use Canadian pricing as >> the basis, but way ahead if I use USA prices. > >Why are the same medicines more expensive in the USA ? --- Trick question? One would think a know-it-all like you'd be able to figure it out with no help at all. -- JF
From: unsettled on 12 Nov 2006 10:34
jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > In article <50e26$4555da8b$49ecfa5$6404(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, > unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: > >>Ben Newsam wrote: >> >> >>>On Fri, 10 Nov 2006 21:41:23 -0500, krw <krw(a)att.bizzzz> wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>>>The fact is that some jobs >>>>aren't worth "minimum wage". >>> >>> >>>Are you saying that you consider some jobs to be so menial that you >>>would actually pay someone less than enough to live on to do them? >>> >>>The trouble with naked capitalism is that it doesn't just produce >>>winners and wealth, it actually requires losers and poverty to >>>operate. Because otherwise there would be no incentive to do anything, >>>would there? The "pure" capitalist system actually requires that some >>>people starve to death just to make sure that the oiks get back to >>>their slave labour. >> >>Been reading too much Marx of late? >> > > No, what you are seeing is how people, who have grown up > in most socialists countries, consider what "capitalism" > means. I haven't been able to describe this in English ASCII > yet. They're spouting second hand Marx. "The central injustice of capitalism, according to Marx, was in the exploitation and alienation of labor" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Das_Kapital It grows into winners vs. losers from there. People like Newsam try to distance themselves from Marx but Marx was the one who first formalized the centralized ideology of socialism. Well, other than the living examples of the early Christians who practiced a form of communism. It isn't all that unusual that few drive progress for its own sake. The theme among blue collars was "pride in their work." Those were actually a central theme in my education, but I hazzard a guess that Newsam and his ilk never heard of it and lacking an adequate understanding of mores and folkways they have nothing other than "the greed of man" to hang their collectivist hats on. |