Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: jmfbahciv on 14 Nov 2006 08:55 In article <0cqgl2dqjvpgq43fn7hve70ltroijupb8t(a)4ax.com>, Ben Newsam <ben.newsam(a)ukonline.co.uk> wrote: >On Mon, 13 Nov 06 10:52:35 GMT, jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > >>In article <9offl211jg34dcjnvbklqkeetfaa686dq1(a)4ax.com>, >> Ben Newsam <ben.newsam(a)ukonline.co.uk> wrote: >>>On Sun, 12 Nov 06 14:00:10 GMT, jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >>>>In article <455638E2.B76D8B7A(a)hotmail.com>, >>>> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >>>>>I'm wondering if BAH thinks we have our treatment 'rationed'. >>>> >>>>Would you know if that happened? Since you can't "shop around" >>>>and compare, you cannot find out if your treatment is rationed, >>>>especially its efficacy. >>> >>>All health systems of whatever sort are limited by cost. An >>>insurance-based scheme will give up long before the NHS, however. >> >>That is one of the reasons an NHS doesn't work well. It takes >>a long time to figure out that something isn't working and then >>decades to adjust policies that will fix it. Meanwhile the >>original problem has been replaced with new problems. None >>ever get fixed because the lag time is so long. > >What I meant was that an insurance-based system will refuse to treat >people who it considers are not insured sooner than one which does not >depend on insurance. Yes. >That means that, should you need a heart >transplant, for instance, the only reason you might not get one (other >than medical reasons) is because of the limits of the system, not >because of your lack of adequate premiums. Now consider the rhetoric of our politicians who keep promising health insurance....not medical care but insurance. /BAH
From: Eeyore on 14 Nov 2006 09:01 jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > >> <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. You need to get away from the concept of commercial insurance. With that model there is no drive to save money. Remember, the NHS is not insurance. Graham
From: Eeyore on 14 Nov 2006 09:02 jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: > ><jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message > > >> 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. How can you *force* ppl to have something they perhaps can't afford ? Graham
From: jmfbahciv on 14 Nov 2006 08:57 In article <s5SdnSxjBZToWcXYnZ2dnUVZ8sOdnZ2d(a)pipex.net>, "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: > ><jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message >news:ej9ipj$8ss_001(a)s785.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... >> In article <9offl211jg34dcjnvbklqkeetfaa686dq1(a)4ax.com>, >> Ben Newsam <ben.newsam(a)ukonline.co.uk> wrote: >>>On Sun, 12 Nov 06 14:00:10 GMT, jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >>>>In article <455638E2.B76D8B7A(a)hotmail.com>, >>>> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >>>>>I'm wondering if BAH thinks we have our treatment 'rationed'. >>>> >>>>Would you know if that happened? Since you can't "shop around" >>>>and compare, you cannot find out if your treatment is rationed, >>>>especially its efficacy. >>> >>>All health systems of whatever sort are limited by cost. An >>>insurance-based scheme will give up long before the NHS, however. >> >> That is one of the reasons an NHS doesn't work well. > >Really? It works better than an insurance based one. So far. But you have a backup system in place that you call private practice. You really have kept the "old" ways. > >> It takes >> a long time to figure out that something isn't working and then >> decades to adjust policies that will fix it. > >Incorrect. Try again. That's how governments work. They are supposed to work slowly. <snip> /BAH
From: Eeyore on 14 Nov 2006 09:04
jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > > Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > >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 > >withoutstarving. > > You are making too many assumptions. EAch sentence assumes different > aged people. I made no asumptions. You did however. > > 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. No. You're trying to dodge the question. I'm asking " How about someone on that minimum wage job for example ? " as in .... they're on a minimum wage NOW - not at some hypothetical point in the future after their wages have increased. Graham |