Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: jmfbahciv on 14 Nov 2006 08:23 In article <45575902.91D89E23(a)hotmail.com>, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > >> In article <b4l5h.2383$6t.568(a)newssvr11.news.prodigy.com>, >> <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: >> > >> >Your argument that we can't switch to a nationalized health care system >> >because we have problems with the current system is exactly 180 degrees out >> >of phase with reality. We need to switch to a nationalized health care >> >system precisely becuase we have problems with the current system. >> >> The current problems are *caused* by having insuranace as the >> basis of medical service delivery. Forcing >> everybody to go the insurance route is flat out stupid. > >You would appear to be seeing the light ! I see the consequences just fine. Forcing, by law, everyone to have insurance is the latest idiocy. Now people are trying to change our state constitution to make having insurance a right. Please note that these people never say receiving medical treatments but merely insurance. /BAH
From: jmfbahciv on 14 Nov 2006 08:25 In article <ADL5h.3520$Sw1.322(a)newssvr13.news.prodigy.com>, <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: > ><jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message >news:ej78b0$8qk_005(a)s851.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... >> In article <b4l5h.2383$6t.568(a)newssvr11.news.prodigy.com>, >> <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: >>> >>><jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message >>>news:ej4f53$8ss_005(a)s977.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... >>>> In article <Uc15h.3583$IR4.3435(a)newssvr25.news.prodigy.net>, >>>> <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: >>>>> >>>>><jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message >>>>>news:ej22rc$8qk_013(a)s995.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... >>>>>> In article <eivs0e$vor$4(a)leto.cc.emory.edu>, >>>>>> lparker(a)emory.edu (Lloyd Parker) wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>What good are the other rights if you're dead? >>>>>> >>>>>> Reread the sentence. They are only talking about insurance >>>>>> being a right, not getting medical care. There is a difference. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>Well, the difference would be kinda moot to the millions of Americans >>>>>who >>>>>do >>>>>not have insurance and cannot afford medical care, now wouldn't it? >>>> >>>> Now think about why they can't afford it. >>> >>>Becuase of the inefficient system we currently have. Why not replace it >>>with something that is proven to be efficient. >>> >>>Your argument that we can't switch to a nationalized health care system >>>because we have problems with the current system is exactly 180 degrees >>>out >>>of phase with reality. We need to switch to a nationalized health care >>>system precisely becuase we have problems with the current system. >>> >> >> The current problems are *caused* by having insuranace as the >> basis of medical service delivery. > >Correct. > > >> Forcing >> everybody to go the insurance route is flat out stupid. > >That's not what a nationalized health care system is. You have a complete >lack of understanding of what a nationalized health care system is. Until >you educate yourself on that, your protestations are pointless. Massachusetts just passed a law that forces everybody to have insurance. The stuff that Hillary tried to get passed in 1992 was insurance. /BAH
From: jmfbahciv on 14 Nov 2006 08:28 In article <455759E3.AAAFF753(a)hotmail.com>, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > >> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >> >> >> Now think about why they can't afford it. >> > >> >Their wages are too low maybe ? They can't get a better paying job. Other >> >expenses come first out of necessity ? These would be typical reasons. >> >> No. Unfortunately, people's mindset is that they should get stuff >> for free or pay very little. When a generic doesn't work as well >> as the namebrand, people decide to stay with the generic because >> they don't have to pay as much for it. > >You're not addressing my point, ot you're arguing in favour of inadequate health >care for ppl who aren't well off. > >In the above you seem to think that poorer ppl *really could* pay say $300 p.m. >for drugs. I say they simply don't have the kind of income to afford it without >starving. You are making too many assumptions. EAch sentence assumes different aged people. > >How about someone on that minimum wage job for example ? Here you seem to assume that all people who work at a minimum wage job will always work for that money, never get salary nor benefit increases, nor work at better-paying jobs. /BAH
From: jmfbahciv on 14 Nov 2006 08:29 In article <aHL5h.3548$Sw1.2914(a)newssvr13.news.prodigy.com>, <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: > ><jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message >news:ej78f4$8qk_006(a)s851.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... >> In article <4555FCAF.C765CB5E(a)hotmail.com>, >> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> >>>jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >>> >>>> <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: >>>> ><jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message >>>> >> lparker(a)emory.edu (Lloyd Parker) wrote: >>>> >> >>>> >>>What good are the other rights if you're dead? >>>> >> >>>> >> Reread the sentence. They are only talking about insurance >>>> >> being a right, not getting medical care. There is a difference. >>>> > >>>> > >>>> >Well, the difference would be kinda moot to the millions of Americans >>>> >who >> do >>>> >not have insurance and cannot afford medical care, now wouldn't it? >>>> >>>> Now think about why they can't afford it. >>> >>>Their wages are too low maybe ? They can't get a better paying job. Other >>>expenses come first out of necessity ? These would be typical reasons. >> >> No. Unfortunately, people's mindset is that they should get stuff >> for free or pay very little. When a generic doesn't work as well >> as the namebrand, people decide to stay with the generic because >> they don't have to pay as much for it. > >Only if they or their doctor is stupid. Things have changed so that the doctor doesn't have a choice. If a doctor no longer works for himself, he has to stay within coporate guidelines. /BAH
From: jmfbahciv on 14 Nov 2006 08:33
In article <6qeel21eiq2hk5e0pf9i7p1g25flrpn05d(a)4ax.com>, Ben Newsam <ben.newsam(a)ukonline.co.uk> wrote: >On Sun, 12 Nov 06 13:47:55 GMT, jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > >>So you do have to be vetted. You already have limited access. >>When, or if, your GP infrastructure goes to pieces, you'll have >>no access. > ><Boggle> That's plain daft. WHy should it fall to pieces? Or rather >why would the GP infrastructure fall to pieces leaving the hospital >and consultant system in place? They are all part of the same thing. GPs in the US are rarer than hen's teeth. I don't know of any who practice within 25 mile radius here. Everybody is a specialist so nobody has a general knowledge of medical afflictions. Diagnosis is no longer possible without a lab piece of paper. /BAH |