Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: lucasea on 12 Nov 2006 16:22 "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote in message news:dZ6dnXZEJqkw0crYnZ2dnUVZ8qidnZ2d(a)pipex.net... > > <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. And in fact, under the current US system, we don't have to either. Give her complete lack of understanding of how things "get done", she probably doesn't even know how to see a doctor and get her problems fixed. As a side note, that could go a long way to explain her apparently untreated paranoia and neuroses. Eric Lucas
From: lucasea on 12 Nov 2006 16:27 "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote in message news:iMqdndygs8fA08rYnZ2dnUVZ8sOdnZ2d(a)pipex.net... > > <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message > news:ej725c$8ss_002(a)s851.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... >> In article <Tel5h.2388$6t.1435(a)newssvr11.news.prodigy.com>, >> <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: >>> >>><jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message >>>news:ej4gig$8ss_012(a)s977.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... >>>> Why do you think Arabs asked >>>> the western world for help? In all other cases, this would have >>>> been unthinkable. >>> >>>No, that the house of Saud is a US puppet is widely acknowledged around >>>the >>>world. Not unthinkable at all. It just happened to be a slightly neater >>>way of getting things done. >> >> You have a lot of delusions. I'd like to figure out how you got >> them. >> > > Oh no, another irony meter bites the dust. > > Are you asserting here that the Saudi royal family are not widely > considered a government which is obedient to the US? OK, that seals it. She's a troll, and not interested in reasonable discussion, but rather just keeping this thread going as long as possible by making ridiculous assertions that have no basis in reality. Eric Lucas
From: lucasea on 12 Nov 2006 16:34 "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote in message news:yt-dne7WCNI5zMrYRVnysw(a)pipex.net... > > <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message > news:ej7ffd$8qk_042(a)s851.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... >> In article <455615CC.2B8A045E(a)hotmail.com>, >> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> >>>jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >>> >>>> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >>>> >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >>>> >> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >>>> >> >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >>>> >> > >>>> >> >> Raising the minimum wage is stupid and insane. >>>> >> > >>>> >> >Why ? >>>> >> >>>> >> It causes all other prices to eventually go up, especially housing. >>>> >> It eliminates wage competition. People's real productivity is >>>> >> no longer measured nor rewarded with wage. >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >I saw it can be a slow as $5 an hour. >>>> >> > >>>> >> >Can anyone actually live on that ? >>>> >> >>>> >> $10k/year? Yes. >>>> > >>>> >You wouldn't get far on ?5263 over here for sure. >>>> >>>> I didn't say it was easy and one also has to give up a lot >>>> of middle class "attitudes" ;-). >>> >>>Around here you'd pay ~ ?3000 p.a. minimum just for >>>a very basic rented room ! >> >> In the US you can't plan on renting when you stop working. Part >> of way we live is to spend a part of our wages on a place to live >> that will become yours after a few years. That way you can >> eliminate paying rent as part of your living expense. > > Your argument has more holes than swiss cheese. > > You cant plan on renting anywhere when you stop working. If you are > earning $200 a week, how do you save for a place to live? Where do you > live while you are saving? What do you eat? > >> Like I said it is possible but you do have to give up middle class >> attitudes. > > Nonsense. > >>> >>>Now try living on ?43 p.w. ! >> >> After my tuition and dorm fee were paid, I lived on $2/month when >> I went to college; the $2 included clothes washing and Tampax. > > I defy you to feed yourself on $2 a week. I defy you to feed yourself, > travel to and from work and afford work clothes on $2 a week. Well, keep in mind this was probably 30 - 40 years ago, and she's not talking 2006 dollars. In the 70s, boxes of macaroni and cheese, and packets of ramen noodles could be found for 20/$1. That'll keep you going, but it ain't living--it's not a balanced diet, and isn't sustainable over the long haul. Eric Lucas Eric Lucas
From: lucasea on 12 Nov 2006 16:37 "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message news:45575321.EDAD176C(a)hotmail.com... > > > jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > >> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >> >> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> >> >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >> >> > >> >> >> My folks, >> >> >> who will not see 80 again, dug a dry well by hand in the >> >> >> summer of 2005. >> >> > >> >> >Dare I ask why ? >> >> >> >> They needed one >> > >> >Was there a problem with their water supply ? >> >> Sorry. I should have explained. If you flush a toilet >> there's the solids and paper and lots and lots of water. >> A septic tank will fill up twice a year if the water >> isn't allowed to leak out. A dry well, which is an empty >> hole in the ground, lined by cement blocks, takes water overflows >> and allows the excess water to seep into the ground. So the >> water is recycled and the septic tank only has to be cleaned >> once every n years depending on the number of people filling it. > > Understood. > > >> >> and nobody in the business made them anymore. >> >> For some strange reason, leach fields are the craze. >> > >> >I'm not familiar with this 'leach fields' thing. >> >> That's another way to get rid of excess water and put >> it back into your water table. >> >> Didn't you ever wonder where your sewer people put all of that >> water that get flushed and put down the drains of your sinks, >> baths, and showers? > > Ultimately the River Thames - and then the sea. Exactly how it happens in the US. Ever wonder why most (all?) water treatment plants are adjacent to either a river, lake, or some other large body of water? Eric Lucas
From: lucasea on 12 Nov 2006 16:43
"Ben Newsam" <ben.newsam(a)ukonline.co.uk> wrote in message news:eghel21umi202n5ohm1kngi4v4s0g838k3(a)4ax.com... > > I'm with you on that one. When I heard of the bombings in London last > year, I said to myself "They picked the wrong city to bomb this time, > London will just carry on as normal". The media here picked up on that. It was an admirable response. Eric Lucas |