Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: T Wake on 12 Nov 2006 11:29 <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message news:ej78pq$8qk_009(a)s851.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... > In article <e96cl2tviek822ftetj8rtphkkoold1oqe(a)4ax.com>, > Ben Newsam <ben.newsam(a)ukonline.co.uk> wrote: >>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. > > How do you get a new GP if you are unhappy with yours? Change practice. > Will that new GP take new patients? Yes. > If s/he doesn't, where do you go? S/He will. If you don't like that one either, you find another one.
From: Eeyore on 12 Nov 2006 11:31 T Wake wrote: > <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote in message > > "unsettled" <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote in message > >> > >> We have several posters here rooting for the Iraqis and > >> Arabs in general, speaking consistently against the US. > > > > And about that you would, once again, be wrong. Nobody is "rooting" (as > > if this were nothing more important than a football game) against the US. > > We are "rooting" (to stick with your offensive terminology) for the Iraqis > > to stop getting killed for no good reason (no sectarian violence there > > before we decided to stick our nose in where it doesn't belong), and for > > decency, sanity and honesty in the way the US applies its foreign policy. > > it is especially funny as one of the arguments used is that the invasion was > to "help" the Iraqis. Now they are the enemy. > > Interesting set of double standards. Don't worry. Eventually the Iraqis will be "free to so do what we tell them" ! Graham
From: T Wake on 12 Nov 2006 11:31 <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message news:ej79da$8qk_014(a)s851.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... > In article <455638E2.B76D8B7A(a)hotmail.com>, > Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> >> >>T Wake wrote: >> >>> <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message >>> >>> > 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. >> >>I'll add that most ppl are already 'registered' with a regular doctor ( or >>practice ) of their choice whom they would normally see. >> >> >>> > 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? >> >>I'm wondering if BAH thinks we have our treatment 'rationed'. > > Would you know if that happened? Since you can't "shop around" > and compare, you cannot find out if your treatment is rationed, > especially its efficacy. You are talking nonsense now. You imply that going to the doctor for him to recommend what specialist treatment you need is a "vetting" process (in a derogatory manner). You think in the NHS there is no capability to "shop around," when in fact there is. Stop desperately trying to find faults which don't exist.
From: T Wake on 12 Nov 2006 11:31 <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message news:ej79kg$8qk_015(a)s851.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... > In article <M_t5h.736$yE6.654(a)newssvr14.news.prodigy.com>, > <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: >> >>"unsettled" <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote in message >>news:f223d$45565fb7$4fe73d4$10122(a)DIALUPUSA.NET... >>> Ben Newsam wrote: >>> >>>> On Sat, 11 Nov 2006 20:23:39 -0000, "T Wake" >>>> <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>>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? >>>> >>>> >>>> I would imagine that under a system where anyone can visit any >>>> specialist at any time, the best specialists would be inundated with >>>> rich hypochondriacs wasting their time. >>> >>> That doesn't seem to happen much in the US. I don't >>> need a referral to see a specialist. >> >>Sentence #1 doesn't follow from sentence #2 above. In fact, sentence #1 >>is >>simply wrong. Your anecdote aside, anybody who has an HMO for their >>health >>care (i.e., most of the people insured through their jobs by corporate >>concerns) must go through their PCP (primary care physician) to get to a >>specialist...at least they do if they want the HMO to pay for it. > > And you're stuck with that PCP if the others in the system aren't > taking new patients. Thus, if the PCP is an incompetent doctor > it takes years to be able to transfer to another's list. Here > in the northeast no doctor is local. You have to drive or be > driven or go the emergency room. That's it. Shame you don't have a nationalised health service really, isn't it?
From: T Wake on 12 Nov 2006 11:32
<jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message news:ej79a0$8qk_013(a)s851.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... > 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. But, without six years medical school and subsequent real world experience you are not experts. If you had an NHS you wouldn't have to self diagnose. |