Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: Ben Newsam on 12 Nov 2006 19:36 On Sun, 12 Nov 2006 18:56:55 +0000, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >T Wake wrote: > >> <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote >> > >> > I couldn't hire for any price. >> >> Yet under the NHS in the UK, my GP regularly makes house calls to his >> patients. Amazing isn't it. > >BAH might also be interested to know about NHS Direct for 'out of hours' needs. >I wonder if there's any US equivalent. Interesting idea: I wonder if people in the US could phone NHS Direct? And if they can, would they be given advice or would they be told it isn't available for people abroad? If anyone wants to try, the number is: 0845 4647 So, from abroad, my guess at the correct number would be: +44 845 4647 where the "+" is of course whatever you dial to get international calls.
From: Ben Newsam on 12 Nov 2006 19:41 On Sun, 12 Nov 06 14:00:10 GMT, jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >In article <455638E2.B76D8B7A(a)hotmail.com>, > Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >>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. All health systems of whatever sort are limited by cost. An insurance-based scheme will give up long before the NHS, however.
From: Ben Newsam on 12 Nov 2006 19:43 On Sun, 12 Nov 2006 17:58:27 +0000, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > >> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> >> >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. > >In one case I wasn't happy with the treatment I got from a concultant so my >doctor referred me to another one. And if you were still really unhappy with the treatment you got, you could always pay for private treatment somewhere if that's what you wanted, that option is always available.
From: Ben Newsam on 12 Nov 2006 19:48 On Sun, 12 Nov 2006 09:05:34 -0600, unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >> 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. Indeed. I try to work on the basis that the doctor gives me a diagnosis and makes recommendations, but the final decision about treatment is mine.
From: Ben Newsam on 12 Nov 2006 19:58
On Sun, 12 Nov 2006 18:13:11 -0000, "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: >The trial still must take place with the assumption that the person is >innocent unless the prosecution can make a strong enough case - anything >else pretty much makes the trial pointless. You could argue that once there >is enough assumption of guilt for a trial, the person _must_ be guilty. At >the moment this seems unlikely to happen in general trials but it tends to >be the case in high profile or celebrity trials. > >The issue I have with the double jeopardy is that once an "authority figure" >(which sadly doesn't have to be especially versed in trial law) judges the >evidence overwhelming enough for a re-trial, this is very likely to create >jury bias. This is where (IMHO of course) the problem with the change >appears. OK, I take your point, but I still have to disagree. The British justice system, although not perfect by any means, is quite careful not to allow careless talk in the media about cases that are "sub judice". That explains why press statements are made on the courtroom steps on the way out rather than on the way in as in some other countries. I can see a problem with a case becoming prejudiced if a person is subjected to a second trial in the absence of double jeopardy rules because of media attention after the first trial, but that is of course up to the judge to decide. Also, yes, it is bad for justice in general if politicians or media figures campaign successfully for retrials for purely emotional or political reasons. Unfortunately, there have been several spectacular miscarriages of justice where the system got carried away in various ways. |