Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: Eeyore on 13 Nov 2006 20:15 unsettled wrote: > Funny thing. A number of posters say the US is imposing > its will on the Iraqi population. But there's no problem > with you lot wanting to impose NHS on America. You argue > for it as though you know what's best for us. No-one said anything about *imposing* it. Why do you have to lie ? I'm perplexed you can't see its advantages for sure. Graham
From: lucasea on 13 Nov 2006 20:55 "unsettled" <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote in message news:3512e$45590cac$49ecf51$2340(a)DIALUPUSA.NET... >T Wake wrote: > >> <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote in message >> news:Uh46h.13917$B31.5251(a)newssvr27.news.prodigy.net... >> >>>"unsettled" <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote in message >>>news:d7564$4558c674$4fe7476$806(a)DIALUPUSA.NET... >>> >>>>Nationalized anything is a form of socialism. >> >> Ok, so what? You have a nationalised military - bloody socialists. > > No it isn't. It started out part of the federal government. Doesn't matter how it started out. What matters is who runs it. You, yourself, said "nationalized anything is a form of socialism." Nothing in that sentence about how it started out. > You argue despite your inability to use ordinary language > skills. What part of "nationalized anything is a form of socialism" did you not mean? >> As it stands, how does saying "it is a form of socialism" mean it will be >> worse? > > That's like asking the pope why he isn't a protestant. So I take that to mean that you think anything socialist is, by definition, worse. Would it surprise you to know that there has never in human history been a pure capitalist system, either over a large population or for a long time span? So it would seem that history proves that at least a small amount of this evil called "socialism" is necessary to make a practical economic system work. Now, I understand and agree that a completely socialist system is undesirable. However, given that some socialist aspects are necessary in *any* real economy, why not pick something like a nationalized health care system, since it's one of the more valuable ways to spend our limited socialist needs--especially given the current abject failure of the monopolistic, capitalist health care system. > Your pathetic and sickly argumentation does not negate the > honorable intentions of the military in situ, nor does > anything you say have any validity. > > You're still in the feeding frenzy mode. That's an entire > agenda on its own. And you're still in "label so I don't have to argue facts, but can rely on emotional arguments" mode. That's an entire agenda on its [sic] own. > Lucas is as much a Marxist-socialist as you are. Once again, you label so you don't have to argue honestly. You don't know a damn thing about me, but choose to label my entire philosophy to attempt to discredit me on account of the fact that I disagree with you on this point. I am about as conservative, economically, as they come, but *above all*, I'm a pragmatist. At some point, even us free-marketers have to throw up our hands and recognize that the current system of health care ain't a-workin', and we need to come up with something else that works better. Since the British seem to have come up with that something, I suggest taking an honest look (that doesn't involve name-calling, by the way). The *only* thing you can find wrong with it is that it isn't pure capitalism, and a few trumped-up charges about inefficiency and limited care. Well, I'll let you in on a little secret, if you promise not to tell. Our economy isn't pure capitalism. In fact, no major economy ever was, for any length of time. So objecting to one facet of an economy that's not pure capitalism is just fartin' in the wind. > In medicine the individual working to achieve the best > available wellness is the key. And since that person will always be the patient looking out for his own wellness, what's the problem? How many individuals in > excellent physical condition, indeed involved in sports > at the time of their sudden death, were there. I had made > a mental note that there have been a handfull in the > USA in the past year or so. > > You're attempting to assign an engineering style > causality to good health. No I'm not. > But then you don't understand > anything about hidden factors. Yes, I do. However, you don't seem to understand that, in many cases, if those hidden factors are caught earlier rather than later, the cost of dealing with them will be much less. > "Prevention" in the context you've used it doesn't necesitate > consistent medical surveillance. It is part of the picture. > If you don't understand > the basics of living for health and longevity then this > discussion, as all the rest, will be lost on you. I do understand them, but what appears to be lost on you is that doctors 1) help people make smart decisions on living for health and longevity, and 2) regular visits to doctors can catch the very hidden factors that you mention, before they become bigger problems. > Like a man recently told me, "If I'd known I was going to > live this long I'd have taken better care of my body." And doctors could have helped him do that. >> I am intrigued that they dont see this "method" of healthcare (for want >> of better words) is costing much, much more than prevention and the costs >> of the expensive treatment of these poor is _still_ being spread over the >> paying elements of the population. > >> If they paid for preventative treatment, the ER costs would be a lot >> less. > > You're attempting to contort engineering principles to suit > a sociologial argument. It just doesn't work that way. Yes, as a matter of fact, it does. > What sort of preventive treatment is there for cancer? Catching cancer early vastly increases chances of survival, and decreases the cost of treatment. Take prostate cancer--catch it early, and you can treat it with various medicines. Catch it too late, and you're either talking an operation to remove the prostate, or worse. > How > about macular degeneration? There are hundreds of things > that have no preventive treatments, and very few that do. That's certainly not true. In almost any disease, it's easier, cheaper and healthier to catch and treat it earlier rather than later. > So you've once again built a straw man. Maybe it sounds > reasonable, but it has absolutely no factual basis. If you're going to attack the factual basis for something that's widely known in the medical community, you might want to get some actual data, not make vague assertions about one or two diseases (about one of which your assertion was simply wrong.) >>>>So there's a form of
From: lucasea on 13 Nov 2006 21:07 "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message news:455918C4.23BF9F44(a)hotmail.com... > > > unsettled wrote: > >> Funny thing. A number of posters say the US is imposing >> its will on the Iraqi population. But there's no problem >> with you lot wanting to impose NHS on America. You argue >> for it as though you know what's best for us. > > No-one said anything about *imposing* it. Why do you have to lie ? It's the only way to win the argument, and for egos like his, it's all about winning the argument, not learning facts of having a reasoned discussion. > I'm perplexed you can't see its advantages for sure. His emotional rhetoric and fear of change has blinded him to actual facts. Eric Lucas
From: Eeyore on 13 Nov 2006 23:42 lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net wrote: > "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message > > unsettled wrote: > > > >> Funny thing. A number of posters say the US is imposing > >> its will on the Iraqi population. But there's no problem > >> with you lot wanting to impose NHS on America. You argue > >> for it as though you know what's best for us. > > > > No-one said anything about *imposing* it. Why do you have to lie ? > > It's the only way to win the argument, and for egos like his, it's all about > winning the argument, not learning facts of having a reasoned discussion. > > > I'm perplexed you can't see its advantages for sure. > > His emotional rhetoric and fear of change has blinded him to actual facts. It's not like I have any need to prove a point, I think the NHS is quite capable of doing that for itself. What's so weird is that here's an idea up for offer and a whole group of ppl don't even want to hear about it ! There's none so deaf they say as those who will not listen. Graham
From: Sorcerer on 14 Nov 2006 00:01
"Ben Newsam" <ben.newsam(a)ukonline.co.uk> wrote in message news:csqhl2hcigic2g8l3raia779mn3o1d4qao(a)4ax.com... |