Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: unsettled on 13 Nov 2006 14:36 T Wake wrote: > <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. Nationalized anything is a form of socialism. There are those of us who hold the well supported understanding that delf-regulating competitive capitalism works better. >>>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. In the US the law requires every hospital emergency room to accommodate and assist anyone who comes to their doorstep in an emergency situation. They are required only to provide such services as will stabilize the patient's condition while getting them out of the life-threatening situation. People with insurance or funds receive more extensive services. People without means may be pursued in collections, but if they are destitute not much effort is wasted to try to collect. Hospitals frequently absorb the costs in such cases, driving up everyone else's costs as a result. So there's a form of socialism built into this even in the US.
From: unsettled on 13 Nov 2006 14:37 T Wake wrote: > <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message > news:ej9msg$8qk_007(a)s785.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... > >>In article <laL5h.3504$Sw1.1347(a)newssvr13.news.prodigy.com>, >> <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> 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. >>> >>>Where did you get that loony idea? >>> >> >>Personal experience. I know that doesn't matter to you. I >>need a web site that proves my experience never happened before >>you'll give any credence to what I write. > > > See, if you had an NHS then you would realise doctors do indeed take on new > patients, even if they have existing conditions. Is that required, or voluntary?
From: Eeyore on 13 Nov 2006 14:39 lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net wrote: > "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message > > jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > >> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > >> > >> >Finding the right thing that's profitable isn't always that easy. > >> > >> It is easy. People around here charge $50 for 15 minutes' worth > >> of housecleaning and they get it. > > > > They do ? > > > > I'm sure they wouldn't here. > > It's certainly not the norm in the US. It might be $50, (I've heard smaller > number, in the $30 - $40 range) but it's not for 15 minutes work--typically > it is for cleaning a whole house, which, including vacuuming, mopping, > cleaning the loo, is probably more like an hour or two. I think I detect a dismissive attitude from BAH as in she thinks it should only take 15 mins to clean a house. Strange though, most women I know like to make a song and dance about it. Graham
From: T Wake on 13 Nov 2006 14:38 "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message news:4557B569.C83468D1(a)hotmail.com... > > > T Wake wrote: > >> <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote in message >> > "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote in message >> > >> >> I would love to see someone on $200 per week even affording food bills >> >> let alone anything else. >> > >> > Did you mean $200/month? The missus and I eat quite well on $200/week, >> > and that even involves eating out one or two nights a week. >> > >> > That said, that's only food. >> >> Ok, $200 a week may well be enough for food. However, that is the whole >> income. Deduct tax, transport, insurance, rent, heating, electricity and >> what is left? > > Would there be any income tax payable on $10,000 ? No idea. That said, I still have yet to see some one break down how a person can live, cook, travel to and from work and clothe themselves on $200 per week.
From: T Wake on 13 Nov 2006 14:39
"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message news:4557AFAF.D655185B(a)hotmail.com... > > > unsettled wrote: > >> T Wake wrote: >> >> > It wont be relevant. When I was 18 you could buy a house outright for >> > ?20k. >> > Now you need ten times that amount. >> >> I bought a bank reposessed house two years ago for >> $15,500. It is an investment house. It needed $1000 >> in repairs to make it habitable, and that was because >> the pipes had frozen and burst. >> >> I can buy similar houses today at a similar price. > > In a location where jobs are plentiful at a wage that would meet the > repayments > and keep a family ? Well, if unsettled lets me know where they are, I may be tempted to buy a dozen or so as an investment. |