Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: T Wake on 13 Nov 2006 13:51 <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message news:ej9o2d$8qk_002(a)s785.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... > In article <RbudnZ0isIZD2srYnZ2dnUVZ8sOdnZ2d(a)pipex.net>, > "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: >> >><jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message >>news:ej73t9$8qk_006(a)s851.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... >>> 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? >> >>No. You are trying to imply that the size of the US prevents a single >>organisation running anything > > with effectiveness, efficacy, and efficently and with common sense. > No it cannot. To provide something for everybody requires only > minimum equal disbursements to be "fair". So you have no military? You have no FBI? Interesting when I thought you did actually have national agencies. Sorry for my mistake. It is a shame you have such a low opinion of your fellow countrymen. >>- this is not the case. On the contrary, the >>size and population of the US would give a nationalised health care system >>phenomenal economies of scale. > > Exactly. Corruption would be rampant. Interestingly that is not what I said at all. A nationalised health care system would not be inherently corrupt (any more than your federal agencies are today), unless you think that Americans are intrinsically incapable of that. The economy of scale would allow the USNHS to save fortunes over the current systems. It is strange you refuse to see this. > Even more than it is today > with the US' parital implementation of an NHS. The US does not have a "partial" implementation of a national health service. You are tilting at windmills again.
From: T Wake on 13 Nov 2006 13:52 <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message news:ej9o6b$8qk_003(a)s785.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... > In article <45575045.594C7E30(a)hotmail.com>, > Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> >> >>jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >> >>> "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: >>> ><jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message >>> >>> >> 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? >> >>It's a bigger country physically.. >> >>How do you think it would make a business less efficient ? Is FedEx in >>Europe >>more or less efficient / profitable than in the USA for example. >> > > For medical treatments to be the most effective, the treatment > has to be done at a personal level. What has that got to do with the example used? For FedEx to deliver the parcel is handed over from one person to another. That is pretty much on a personal level. NHS medical treatments _are_ done on a personal level. I dont know what weird images an NHS conjures up in your mind, but you are wrong. > What you recommend will > put all treatment at a production line scale. Nonsense.
From: T Wake on 13 Nov 2006 13:53 <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message news:ej9o9q$8qk_004(a)s785.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... > In article <xcL5h.3508$Sw1.2625(a)newssvr13.news.prodigy.com>, > <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: >> >><jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message >>news:ej73t9$8qk_006(a)s851.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... >>> 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? >> >>You make some vague assertions about lack of availability, based upon >>who-knows-what wacko assumptions. Of course we can't see the difference >>as >>applies to a nationalized health care system. Oh, and by the way, Canada >>spans just as much area as the US. > > And they hop the US border to get the medical care. And Americans go outside the US for medical care. So what?
From: unsettled on 13 Nov 2006 14:02 John Fields wrote: > On Sat, 11 Nov 2006 21:41:50 -0000, "T Wake" > <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: > > >>"John Fields" <jfields(a)austininstruments.com> wrote in message >>news:cdnbl2tfs917t21jv0tvvl07dldnqoe6vq(a)4ax.com... >> >>>On Fri, 10 Nov 2006 23:23:23 +0000, Eeyore >>><rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> >>>> >>>>lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>>"John Fields" <jfields(a)austininstruments.com> wrote in message >>>>>news:c8u9l2p15huilmdlqg8okct65cdt6ap5hm(a)4ax.com... >>>>> >>>>>>Not that we're >>>>>>lily-white, but we don't exactly go around skewering babies for >>>>>>snacks either. >>>>> >>>>>How's that for damnation by faint praise? How far we've fallen from our >>>>>high ideals--from "Give me liberty or give me death!" and "E pluribus >>>>>unum" >>>>>to "At least we don't skewer babies for snacks!" >>>> >>>>Fields has warranted a nickname. >>>> >>>>Impaler ! >>>> >>>>Graham >>> >>>--- >>>No doubt that came to mind because of your often finding yourself >>>dangling from the end of my lance. >>> >> >>Is this supposed to be homoerotic or some flash back to the days of knights? > > > Do you _really_ need help in figuring it out or are you just writing > to hear yourself talk? It is called a feeding frenzy.
From: T Wake on 13 Nov 2006 14:04
<jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message news:ej9mjg$8qk_005(a)s785.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... > In article <6-CdnUDZfv7m1crYRVnyiw(a)pipex.net>, > "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: >> >><jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message >>news:ej73hc$8qk_003(a)s851.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... >>> In article <4556023D.65907648(a)hotmail.com>, >>> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >>>> >>>>> What is really happening >>>>> is that people, who do not have access to a GP, go to the >>>>> most expensive health care facility for treatment. >>>> >>>>Why would they do that ? >>> >>> To get drugs to fix their problem. Doctors don't take >>> new patients who are already sick even if one has >>> medical insurance. For a long time, the doctors around >>> wouldn't take new patients who were on Medicare. I don't if >>> that has changed. >> >>You see, a national health care system would cure this problem. > > No, it would not. A single-payer system would make the problem > so big it could never be fixed. Nope. You are incorrect here. Partly you are incorrect because you refuse to listen to what anyone else says and partly you are incorrect because you have no frame of reference to work from and assume a nationalised health care would be a monopoly business-style insurance company. Nationalised health care does not suffer from the problems you mentioned so I have no idea why you think it would make it worse. >> >>You don't really explain why someone would go to a facility which charged >>more than they could afford though. > > To get the treatment they need in a reasonable time frame. It > is the same reason, people who live in countries with "free" health > care go to other countries who take cash for treatments. Reasonable is not the same as inpatient. If it charges more than the person can afford then how do they pay for it? Think about what "more than they can afford" means. |