Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: jmfbahciv on 13 Nov 2006 08:16 In article <4557569C.6745C824(a)hotmail.com>, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > >> In article <455629EB.431D90E1(a)hotmail.com>, >> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> >> >And much more [NHS whistleblower policy] >> > >> >http://www.pcaw.co.uk/policy_pub/nhs.html >> > >> >> That approach will work for a while until somebody, and then more >> people, figure out how to use it for their own selfish concerns. >> This is normal; that's how people work. Then the whistleblowing >> infrastructure will need a whistleblowing system to keep it >> honest. > >If you think that way, I can only assume it's because >corruption is endemic in the USA. It's pretty bad in places. Fixing it seems like whack-a-mole function. > >I find it disheartening that you think ppl are naturally thieves. This is where you can't understand how things work over here because you've been in a socialist system. I don't know how to explain it to you. A lot of pilfering (I'll use this word) is an individual trying to beat the system. It's normal behaviour I think. Whenever you have a government program that gives money away, everybody is going to take as much as they can. That isn't usually considered theivery. When a people begin to believe it is their "right" to take all the money, the system is corrupt. When laws are passed to fix these problems require that government bureaucracies control every step, we have communism. When a few or one person starts to control disbursements, it is a dictatorship. When the dictator starts to correct perceived offenses with killing the people, it is a viscious dictatorship. /BAH
From: jmfbahciv on 13 Nov 2006 08:17 In article <8jL5h.3512$Sw1.2219(a)newssvr13.news.prodigy.com>, <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: > ><jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message >news:ej74lh$8qk_009(a)s851.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... >> In article <y5m5h.2407$6t.1030(a)newssvr11.news.prodigy.com>, >> <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: >>> >>><jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message >>>news:ej4jv8$8ss_027(a)s977.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... >>>> In article <Pwe5h.8473$9v5.327(a)newssvr29.news.prodigy.net>, >>>> <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>"unsettled" <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote in message >>>>>news:3070a$45554ce3$4fe71df$2923(a)DIALUPUSA.NET... >>>>>> Ben Newsam wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> On Fri, 10 Nov 2006 11:02:02 -0600, unsettled >>>>>>> <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>>He also doesn't seem to mind a large part of that going to >>>>>>>>pay medical care for random strangers including those who >>>>>>>>are getting medical care for their ongoing smoking and drug >>>>>>>>addiction. >>>>>> >>>>>>> Do you seriously believe that your insurance premiums are used only >>>>>>> to >>>>>>> fund *your* medical needs? >>>>>> >>>>>> Since you asked. >>>>>> >>>>>> My insurance premiums are insufficient to cover my >>>>>> medical expenses. 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. I >>>>>> pay for the coverage because it is quite likely >>>>>> I'll need more as I age and there's a penalty if >>>>>> one doesn't sign on when it becomes available to >>>>>> them. >>>>>> >>>>>> Now reread what I wrote and take the narrow meaning: >>>>>> "He (add emphasis to that word) also doesn't seem >>>>>> to mind...." >>>>>> >>>>>> For the most part private US insurance severely >>>>>> limits benefits available for addictions and mental >>>>>> health issues. I can pretty much guarantee that we >>>>>> won't do lung translants for folks still smoking. >>>>> >>>>>A lung transplant would be cheap compared to what they *do* do for >>>>>smokers >>>>>(ex *and* current). Lifelon treatments for emphysema. Years and years >>>>>of >>>>>cancer treatments, including expensive chemo and radiation treatments, >>>>>which >>>>>morph into more and more expensive as the patient very slowly dies. >>>>>Expensive treatments for the heart disease caused by smoking, including >>>>>bypass surgery, heart transplants, and other forms of open-heart >>>>>surgery. >>>> >>>> Those services were already paid for by the tax. >>> >>>What the hell are you on about? 1) We were talking private insurance, 2) >>>If that is *already* paid for by tax, then I guess the horror that the >>>unsettled/BAH creature was trying to create at the thought of tax money >>>paying for treatment of the unwashed masses of smokers, was all just >>>meaningless bluster, since by its own admission, it already happens under >>>the US system. >>> >>> >>>> In Mass., all that >>>> lovely money, not only has been spent twice, it's been borrowed against >>>> (I think) two times. >>> >>>Yeah, we all know how corrupt Massachusetts is--why do you imply that that >>>corruption will happen with a nationalized health care system. >> >> Because it already is happening with the Medicare and Medicaid >> system. Why should I believe that passing a single-payer law >> will stop all of the cheating? > >What "cheating"? Double-billing. Charging for services rendered to dead people. About every six-12 months there's a spectacular news story about somebody who figured out how to acquire millions of dollars. If a system is that holey, the dribbles must be enormous. > > >> Why should I believe that >> the paid services now denied to my folks will suddenly become available >> with the passage of a single-payer law? > >Because as waste and profit motive are removed, There is no profit!!! They are on the US' form of NHS. > the cost of all services >comes down, more services will be affordable by the system. There are rules about reimbursements. Because of those rules, I pay for supplemental insurance for them. > > >> In fact, I know there >> will be more services not covered and a lot more cheating >> done with a single-payer system. > >You do not know any such thing, you are assuming again, with no reason but >paranoia. Oh, that's right. My personal experience cannot count in my disccussions with you. > > >>> If we've >>>learned one thing from the Big Dig, it's "don't let Massachusetts handle >>>any >>>more big projects, and certainly don't let them administer a national >>>health >>>care system." >> >> You have no choice. Every state administers the Medicare and >> Medicaid systems. What makes you think that this will not >> happen if a single-payer law is passed by Congress? > >Becuase it doesn't happen in the UK or Canada, which also have governmental >subdivisions? The people of those countries who go outside the system for their treatment when they are sick is proof that the NHS work. /BAH
From: jmfbahciv on 13 Nov 2006 08:17 In article <45574FB1.DE47F6CF(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: >> >> >> >> >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. >> > >> >What's that got to do with it ? >> >> Administration costs. Availability. Approvals for specific >> treatments. It's "easier" to get these done in a small >> geographic space than a continent's acreage. > >I fail to see what geographic space has to do with it. I know. I don't know how to explain it better. You don't have any idea about living in a place where you cannot see another building that isn't yours. You don't know how people have to plan trips to grocery stores, etc. as if they were long journeys to a vacation spot. > >Most ppl find the idea of 'economy of scale' quite convincing ! > > >> >Which part of " couldn't afford to buy the best medicine [ re: the drug my >> friend couldn't buy] " didn't you understand ? >> >> All of it. > >I asked him. His medical insurance only covers 25% of the cost of drugs. So the >'best drug' was beyond his financial means ( i.e his wages weren't enough to pay >for it ) so he had to settle for something inferior that wasn't wholly effective.. > >Is that clearer ? Let us assume that your friend's salary was $20K/year. This drug dosage costs $25K? I don't believe that. What I do think is that your friend was reluctant to give something up in lieu of a drug that had efficacy. That was his decision to make. /BAH
From: T Wake on 13 Nov 2006 08:33 "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message news:45584E1C.1A8C59AF(a)hotmail.com... > > > Sorcerer wrote: > >> "Ben Newsam" <ben.newsam(a)ukonline.co.uk> wrote in message >> news:rufgl29lqa8ssqdu24an2puistdg7prhrf(a)4ax.com... > > Thank you for helping to contribute to posting count on this thread. > Androcoles is a prime candidate for kill files. The only problem is he morphs his email address every few months. He is pretty much on a par with JoeBlow and unsettled.
From: Eeyore on 13 Nov 2006 08:42
jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > >> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > >> > >> >And much more [NHS whistleblower policy] > >> > > >> >http://www.pcaw.co.uk/policy_pub/nhs.html > >> > > >> > >> That approach will work for a while until somebody, and then more > >> people, figure out how to use it for their own selfish concerns. > >> This is normal; that's how people work. Then the whistleblowing > >> infrastructure will need a whistleblowing system to keep it > >> honest. > > > >If you think that way, I can only assume it's because > >corruption is endemic in the USA. > It's pretty bad in places. Fixing it seems like whack-a-mole function. > > > > >I find it disheartening that you think ppl are naturally thieves. > > This is where you can't understand how things work over here > because you've been in a socialist system. It's not socialist. It's a 'mixed economy'. In reality almost no different to a totally free market. > I don't know how > to explain it to you. A lot of pilfering (I'll use this word) > is an individual trying to beat the system. It's normal behaviour > I think. On a very small scale perhaps. Not enough to inflate costs out of all proportion. > Whenever you have a government program that gives money away, > everybody is going to take as much as they can. It's not giving money away. > That isn't usually > considered theivery. When a people begin to believe it is their > "right" to take all the money, the system is corrupt. When laws > are passed to fix these problems require that government bureaucracies > control every step, we have communism. When a few or one person > starts to control disbursements, it is a dictatorship. When > the dictator starts to correct perceived offenses with killing > the people, it is a viscious dictatorship. You're ranting about stuff that doesn't apply. Graham |