Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: lucasea on 13 Nov 2006 15:09 "unsettled" <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote in message news:d7564$4558c674$4fe7476$806(a)DIALUPUSA.NET... >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. Yeah, it's working *great* in the case of the US health care system. > 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. Yes. What happens is that poor people cannot afford the minimal health care they need (routine doctor visits, inexpensive medicines, etc.), so they let things get worse until their condition becomes life-threatening, when it costs much, much more to treat, even just to get them back out of the life-threatening situation. This is just a small part of the reason that health care costs are so ridiculous in the US. > So there's a form of socialism built into this even in the US. Now you're getting it. Pure capitalism has never been proven to work on a large scale for any extended period of time. So you accept minimal socialist incursions that account for the inefficiencies in the pure capitalist system. A wise man once said "Never do anything out of principle alone", I think it was Ben Franklin. Rejecting something that has socialist aspects just because it is not pure capitalism falls in that category. Eric Lucas
From: krw on 13 Nov 2006 15:14 In article <4558CC45.DC0EF9BB(a)hotmail.com>, rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com says... > > > krw wrote: > > > Who decides what a "living wage" is? You? > > The government actually. You must really love being one of the sheep. -- Keith
From: T Wake on 13 Nov 2006 15:18 <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message news:ej9jii$8ss_003(a)s785.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... > In article <QNU5h.124471$3x1.92893(a)fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk>, > "Sorcerer" <Headmaster(a)hogwarts.physics_e> wrote: >> >>"Ben Newsam" <ben.newsam(a)ukonline.co.uk> wrote in message >>news:n1ifl29hhnqark8djruc1ga4u3p3b0p37n(a)4ax.com... >> >> > > Oh, my! The child has learned a new trick. How many decades > will take for you to grow out of the terrible-twos? > I doubt he will live that long. I just wish he wouldn't keep changing the letter at the end of his email address so I could keep him filtered easily.
From: krw on 13 Nov 2006 15:18 In article <4558CCD8.7635E662(a)hotmail.com>, rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com says... > > > krw wrote: > > > rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com says... > > > jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > > > > Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > >krw wrote: > > > > > > > > > >> There are others that don't "need" a "living wage". > > > > > > > > > >Very rich ppl ? > > > > > > > > Dependents. > > > > > > I doubt there are many who fit into that category any more who could afford to > > > work for peanuts. > > > > Afford? Don't be stupid. > > Afford to in the sense that they're working for 'pin money' as their other expenses > are paid for. Wierd use of "afford"? They can "afford" to do nothing. > > > > As in children and teenagers and humans who > > > > are about to have to support themselves or be forever > > > > on welfare. > > > > > > Eh ? > > > > You'd prefer they not work, thus not gain those skills, because the > > jobs aren't worth the "living wage". Next step; welfare office. > > On the contrary. A living wage avoids the need to apply for benefits. No, working at a job that pays a "living wage", whatever that is, keeps one from going hungry. Welfare ("benefits") is for socialists. -- Keith
From: T Wake on 13 Nov 2006 15:23
<jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message news:ej9jod$8ss_004(a)s785.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... > In article <4557D74E.4B25220F(a)hotmail.com>, > Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> >> >>krw wrote: >> >>> In article <02hbl2h0gb6c0k55ciogmlers06ae3luqe(a)4ax.com>, >>> 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. 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. This is anathema to a lot of people in the USA; however, > this allergy appears to be getting cured rapidly. Lookout, lookout, there is a strawman about. |