Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: unsettled on 12 Nov 2006 11:07 jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > In article <9a071$4557314e$49ecffa$23098(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, > unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: > >>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. >> > > It has nothing to do with generosity. There's no significant profit involved. What would you call it?
From: T Wake on 12 Nov 2006 11:11 <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message news:ej73t9$8qk_006(a)s851.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... > In article <v76dnSNVabJ4h8vYnZ2dnUVZ8v2dnZ2d(a)pipex.net>, > "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: >> >><jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message >>news:ej4hah$8ss_014(a)s977.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... >>> In article <45537045.AC5FCFC6(a)hotmail.com>, >>> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net wrote: >>>> >>>>> 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. >>>> >>>>BAH may not be aware that it was a social conscience that drove Britain >>>>to >>> look >>>>at the possibility of a National Health Service. >>> >>> Britain is a single country and has a "small" acreage. The US >>> is 50 "countries" span a quarter hemisphere. >> >>So what? > > You people honestly can't see the difference? No. You are trying to imply that the size of the US prevents a single organisation running anything - this is not the case. On the contrary, the size and population of the US would give a nationalised health care system phenomenal economies of scale.
From: T Wake on 12 Nov 2006 11:14 <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message news:ej73hc$8qk_003(a)s851.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... > In article <4556023D.65907648(a)hotmail.com>, > Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> >> >>jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >> >>> 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. >> >>Why would they do that ? > > To get drugs to fix their problem. Doctors don't take > new patients who are already sick even if one has > medical insurance. For a long time, the doctors around > wouldn't take new patients who were on Medicare. I don't if > that has changed. You see, a national health care system would cure this problem. You don't really explain why someone would go to a facility which charged more than they could afford though.
From: T Wake on 12 Nov 2006 11:19 <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message news:ej73kg$8qk_004(a)s851.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... > In article <fNqdnUasrZW2gsvYnZ2dnUVZ8smdnZ2d(a)pipex.net>, > "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: >> >><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. > > There will not be access. That's what I'm trying to get > you to understand. Yes there would be. That is what I am trying to get you to understand. > You can have oodles of insurance but, > if you can't get an appt., you might as well use their > forms for toilet paper. You see, you still conflate national health care with a large health insurance scheme. They are not the same. When you can shake off your misconceptions and preconceived notions about NHS things will begin to make sense.
From: T Wake on 12 Nov 2006 11:20
<jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message news:ej7agr$8qk_020(a)s851.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... > In article <rdqbl2pjilequsoc6s3hq0vm3j31162rtj(a)4ax.com>, > Ben Newsam <ben.newsam(a)ukonline.co.uk> wrote: >>On Sat, 11 Nov 06 13:20:21 GMT, jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >> >>>My knowledge about how things works cannot be used. My experience >>>cannot be used. >> >>How can you expect to win an argument when you take the wrong side? >><g> > > I don't expect to win. I do intend to learn. It's been very > difficult to glean much from this thread. There are nuggets > but it takes an enormous amount of energy to find them. My > usual screening procedures cannot be used in this thread. The difficulty you are having stems more from your refusal to accept anything which does not bolster your current thinking. |