Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: lucasea on 12 Nov 2006 15:42 <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message news:ej78f4$8qk_006(a)s851.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... > 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. Only if they or their doctor is stupid. Eric Lucas
From: lucasea on 12 Nov 2006 15:54 <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message news:ej7ffd$8qk_042(a)s851.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... > > After my tuition and dorm fee were paid, So just because you didn't pay it, you think it was free??? You're getting to be as bad as those people that <gasp> want nationalized health care because they think it is free!!! Eric Lucas
From: lucasea on 12 Nov 2006 16:00 "unsettled" <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote in message news:2c2ba$455743de$49ecffa$23510(a)DIALUPUSA.NET... > jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > >> In article <a687d$4557300e$49ecffa$23098(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, >> unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: >> >>>jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >>> >>> >>>>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? >>> >>>They're not science oriented, so they don't understand >>>scale. >> >> >> You are wrong. Some, if not all, are science and/or engineering >> trained. I'm trying to figure out how thinking that is used to >> working analytically, makes such spectacular thinking leaps. > > We disagree. The reason is obvious to me. They don't > understand scale. Of course I understand scale, you nit. You have failed to show how it is relevant to the issue of nationalized health care....especially considering that Canada is just as large as the US. Eric Lucas
From: Eeyore on 12 Nov 2006 16:14 T Wake wrote: > "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message > > T Wake wrote: > >> "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message > >> > >> > Round here a small flat will cost ?130,000 ! That's the entry price for > >> > your own place. > >> > > >> > There is *no way* you can buy that easily even on an average wage for a > >> > single person. > >> > >> Sadly, that sort of price will only buy you a one bedroom flat and it > >> normally costs at least two incomes to purchase it. > > > > Yes. > > > > > >> I would love to see someone on $200 per week even affording food bills > >> let alone anything else. > > > > Eating economically isn't a problem for me. You really need to be able to > > cook though. > > But then you have to afford cooking utensils, a cooker and power to run the > cooker. For sure. On a cold day I'll spend more on power than food. Graham
From: Eeyore on 12 Nov 2006 16:18
lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net wrote: > "John Fields" <jfields(a)austininstruments.com> wrote in message > > > 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." > > Well, that would be your religious prejudices showing. Society existed long > before Jesus or any other religion came up with laws about murder and theft. Religions simply codified these things into their texts. Graham |