Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: jmfbahciv on 14 Nov 2006 09:36 In article <4557666A.D749389A(a)hotmail.com>, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > >> kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote: >> >> > <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: >> > >> >>I would argue that anybody who is still making minimum wage after any time >> >>at all in a job, isn't productive and doesn't deserve to be rewarded. >> > >> >There are some who are working at the limit of their ability. These >> >people still deserve enough of a wage to live on. I have, indirectly, >> >employed such a person in the past. He showed up for work on time and >> >remained for the required time, but instructions to him needed to be made >> >without subordinate clauses because he could not parse them. He is never >> >going to get promoted into management no matter how hard he works. >> >> The grocers hire people who think this way. They are their best >> workers. Now why do you assume that these types have to be >> paid only minimum wage and never get performance raises? > >Wow ! > >That's socialist talk ! Did you realise that ? It is called capitalism which you call socialism. That's another oddness that comes from Europe. /BAH
From: lucasea on 14 Nov 2006 09:40 <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message news:ejcg3u$8ss_017(a)s858.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... > In article <ADL5h.3520$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. OK, so what? It still has nothing to do with a UK-style NHS. Eric Lucas
From: lucasea on 14 Nov 2006 09:42 <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message news:ejcgcn$8ss_019(a)s858.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... > In article <aHL5h.3548$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. Yes, and insurance company guidelines say that they only have to substitute an *identical* generic. If it's identical (i.e., same active ingredient), then by definition, it works the same. When there is no identical generic, then they are free to prescribe whatever they want. If they substituted a generic that is not chemically identical, it was the choice of either the doctor or the patient. Eric Lucas
From: Ken Smith on 14 Nov 2006 09:43 In article <ejcg0c$8ss_016(a)s858.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote: [.....] >I see the consequences just fine. Forcing, by law, everyone >to have insurance is the latest idiocy. If you are going to have an insurance based system and not let the dead bodies of those without insurance clutter the streets, you really need to make sure everyone has insurance. If you don't then an irresponsible fraction of society can become a burden on the rest. > 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. So long as the US doesn't have a NHS, that's the best you can do. You can ensure that the money to pay for the survices is not the problem. You can't ensure that services can be had without something like a NHS. In a free market system, people try to externalize the costs which means that, in the current situation, the expensive and hard to do things get dumped onto the public. In health care, this leads to the doctors wanting to all be plastic surgeons in Holliwood and not fixing broken toes in Teeneck. -- -- kensmith(a)rahul.net forging knowledge
From: jmfbahciv on 14 Nov 2006 09:40
In article <yt-dne7WCNI5zMrYRVnysw(a)pipex.net>, "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: > ><jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message >news:ej7ffd$8qk_042(a)s851.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... >> In article <455615CC.2B8A045E(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: >>>> >> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >>>> >> >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >>>> >> > >>>> >> >> Raising the minimum wage is stupid and insane. >>>> >> > >>>> >> >Why ? >>>> >> >>>> >> It causes all other prices to eventually go up, especially housing. >>>> >> It eliminates wage competition. People's real productivity is >>>> >> no longer measured nor rewarded with wage. >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >I saw it can be a slow as $5 an hour. >>>> >> > >>>> >> >Can anyone actually live on that ? >>>> >> >>>> >> $10k/year? Yes. >>>> > >>>> >You wouldn't get far on ?5263 over here for sure. >>>> >>>> I didn't say it was easy and one also has to give up a lot >>>> of middle class "attitudes" ;-). >>> >>>Around here you'd pay ~ ?3000 p.a. minimum just for >>>a very basic rented room ! >> >> In the US you can't plan on renting when you stop working. Part >> of way we live is to spend a part of our wages on a place to live >> that will become yours after a few years. That way you can >> eliminate paying rent as part of your living expense. > >Your argument has more holes than swiss cheese. > >You cant plan on renting anywhere when you stop working. If you are earning >$200 a week, how do you save for a place to live? Where do you live while >you are saving? What do you eat? When I said plan, I meant long-term planning. That is why people buy their own house and start paying the money they earn while young to pay off the mortgage. When the mortgage is paid off, they don't pay rent. The plan to stay in the house when they quit working. > >> Like I said it is possible but you do have to give up middle class >> attitudes. > >Nonsense. > >>> >>>Now try living on ?43 p.w. ! >> >> After my tuition and dorm fee were paid, I lived on $2/month when >> I went to college; the $2 included clothes washing and Tampax. > >I defy you to feed yourself on $2 a week. I defy you to feed yourself, >travel to and from work and afford work clothes on $2 a week. I defy you to think of ways to stop spending money. /BAH |