From: lucasea on 13 Nov 2006 11:16 <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message news:ej9r89$8qk_001(a)s785.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... > 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. What in the world are you on about? You're certainly not speaking for the entire US--just your little corner. And I suspect that maybe people that you hire to work with you understand that you don't know a thing about how things "get done", and see you as an easy mark. You need to partially take responsibility for this yourself, and get educated about how things get done. > I don't know how to explain it to you. You keep saying this, but have you ever considered the fact that, if you have trouble explaining it, it probably isn't true? > A lot of pilfering (I'll use this word) > is an individual trying to beat the system. It's normal behaviour > I think. Not in my neck of the woods, or anywhere I've lived in seven different states all around the eastern half of the country (including Massachusetts). > Whenever you have a government program that gives money away, > everybody is going to take as much as they can. Well, that would be your problem, then. There's no money being "given away". What's being "given away" is medical care. Get it through your thick skull that an NHS is *not* insurance. > That isn't usually > considered theivery. Of course it is, and it doesn't happen very often. > When a people begin to believe it is their > "right" to take all the money, You may believe that it is your right, but you're a very, very, very small minority. > When a few or one person > starts to control disbursements, it is a dictatorship. Irrelevant to an NHS, since there are no "disbursements". > When > the dictator starts to correct perceived offenses with killing > the people, it is a viscious dictatorship. And what is it called when the dictator makes a unilateral decision, ignoring his own populace, the United Nations, and his own Congress, to wage war on the people of *another* country despite the existence of no threats to the national interests of the dictator's country? Eric Lucas
From: lucasea on 13 Nov 2006 11:21 <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message news:ej9r8k$8qk_002(a)s785.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... > In article <8jL5h.3512$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. You need to get out of the insurance mindset. As I understand it, there is no "charging for services". The doctor simply receives a salary from the government. > 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. If a worldview is that paranoid, the fears 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!!! There is now in the US system. > They are on the US' form of NHS. No, they are a form of insurance. You really need to get out of the insurance mindset, and see that a different way is possible. >> the cost of all services >>comes down, more services will be affordable by the system. > > There are rules about reimbursements. In an NHS, there are no reimbursements. > Because of those rules, > I pay for supplemental insurance for them. You wouldn't have to under an NHS. >>> 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. Your personal experience is not relevant, since your personal experience is with an insurance-based system. Now try imagining a system that is *not* based on insurance of any form. >>>> 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. And what percentage is that? Or do you just have a few anecdotes that you heard from somebody who heard from somebody who heard from somebody? Eric Lucas
From: krw on 13 Nov 2006 12:00 In article <ej4flg$8ss_008(a)s977.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, jmfbahciv(a)aol.com says... > In article <u-2dnbLwyb97osjYnZ2dnUVZ8sOdnZ2d(a)pipex.net>, > "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: > > > >"Ben Newsam" <ben.newsam(a)ukonline.co.uk> wrote in message > >news:8bcal29ia4lnc75lbuo3p1b5l83etn3ive(a)4ax.com... > >> On Fri, 10 Nov 2006 15:53:26 GMT, <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: > >>><jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message > >>>news:ej234l$8qk_015(a)s995.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... > >>>> > >>>> The same thing happened to medical pots of money contributed > >>>> by employees and their employers. The pool of monies got transformed > >>>> to insurance companies. > >>> > >>>Now you're catching on. Private insurance companies have profit motive. > >>>Government bodies that provide for health care don't. > >> > >> I have often wondered, re insurance, if I wouldn't get a better deal > >> by going down the local betting shop. In other words, what odds might > >> I get on betting that my house will get burgled in the next year? > > > >Interesting one - might be worth trying! > > > >Lots of insurance on electrical goods is madness, and you tend to expect > >that. Cat insurance is also insane - some policies ask for in the region of > >£10 pcm per cat and wont pay for the first £50. If you take the money and > >put it in a savings account you get the best of both worlds, as long as you > >have the emergency fund for when it needs a £500 operation... > > > > > You would spend $500 on a cat operation? ($ is merely used to indicate > money and not type of currency). A former manager paid $2500 just to see if the vet would try to save a dog, then another $6000 on surgery. The dog then had to be put down within the month. Yes, there are silly people in this world. -- Keith
From: krw on 13 Nov 2006 12:00 In article <455866D9.8142C7D8(a)hotmail.com>, rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com says... > > > jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > > > Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > >krw wrote: > > >> ben.newsam(a)ukonline.co.uk says... > > >> > On Fri, 10 Nov 2006 21:41:23 -0500, krw <krw(a)att.bizzzz> wrote: > > >> > > > >> > > The fact is that some jobs > > >> > >aren't worth "minimum wage". > > >> > > > >> > Are you saying that you consider some jobs to be so menial that you > > >> > would actually pay someone less than enough to live on to do them? > > >> > > >> You read better than I thought. Believe it or not, there are > > >> people who don't need a job to "live", though they may need a job > > >> to learn work skills or pay for a date on Saturday night. > > > > > >Eh ? > > > > He, as I am, think it's important that kids learn how to work > > and earn money. It's good training for the time when they > > are supposed to do this. > > I can't disagree with that for sure ! ....and you believe that requires a "living wage"? > > > > Instead you socialist types are > > trying to keep all adults in childhood with a nonentity, called > > govnerment, makes all the decisions of living and life style > > for you. > > You are entirely mistaken. I've been self-employed for 21 years for example. > That doesn't sound very socialist to me ! You still live in a socialist society. Socialism <> communism, though you'd probably like that too. > > > This is anathema to a lot of people in the USA; however, > > this allergy appears to be getting cured rapidly. > > Your view of Europe is once again in error. Nope. -- Keith
From: krw on 13 Nov 2006 12:00
In article <8yQ5h.5348$Sw1.1153(a)newssvr13.news.prodigy.com>, lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net says... > > "krw" <krw(a)att.bizzzz> wrote in message > news:MPG.1fc11e03f06bbb69989af7(a)news.individual.net... > > In article <1eWdnc1_CsAzoMvYRVnyvA(a)pipex.net>, > > usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com says... > >> > >> <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message > >> news:ej4l1b$8ss_033(a)s977.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... > >> > In article <4555374F.EF500B95(a)hotmail.com>, > >> > Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > >> >> > >> >> > >> >>krw wrote: > >> >> > >> >>> rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com says... > >> >>> > jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > >> >>> > > >> >>> > > Raising the minimum wage is stupid and insane. > >> >>> > > >> >>> > Why ? > >> >>> > >> >>> Why should the federal government tell anyone what their worth is? > >> >>> > > >> >>> > I saw it can be a slow as $5 an hour. > >> >>> > >> >>> The federal minimum wage is $5.15/hr. Some states are higher > >> >>> (Vermont is $7.25 and going up). I'm not sure anyone really works > >> >>> for the minimum (MacD's is advertising $9.00/hr.). > >> >> > >> >>So why the fuss over increasing what would seem to be a notional > >> >>minimum ? > >> >> > >> > > >> > You should notice that Keith is swearing. That is not is usual > >> > style. I guess he's got the same problems I have. AS minimum > >> > wage goes skyhigh, so do property taxes, real estate, food, other > >> > taxes, and other things needed for survival. > >> > >> You both have claimed that "hardly anyone" would work for the minimum > >> wage. > >> If this is the case, it will have no impact at all. > > > > "Hardly anyone" who needed that job to live on. There are others > > that don't "need" a "living wage". > > Great. So you model is Donald Trump manning the drive-through at the local > McDonalds. I know it tough, but try not to be so stupid. > > >> We could always go back to pre-black death serfdom. That kept the price > >> of > >> _everything_ low. > > > > Yeah, *that's* a logical argument. > > 'Bout as logical as anything I've seen from you. IRYGWBOMASTY? Figures. -- Keith |