From: jmfbahciv on 14 Nov 2006 09:52 In article <34qgl2d9rnbe9gr4dkk25k11eupha3p8a5(a)4ax.com>, Ben Newsam <ben.newsam(a)ukonline.co.uk> wrote: >On Mon, 13 Nov 06 11:05:54 GMT, jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > >>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 suggest you just plonk him like I now have. That way you don't have >to see his childish nonsense. You do know the history behind this particular poutfest, do you not? /BAH
From: jmfbahciv on 14 Nov 2006 09:53 In article <frGdnY9R_emaTsXYnZ2dnUVZ8smdnZ2d(a)pipex.net>, "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: > ><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. > > He hasn't changed his user name in a very long time. /BAH
From: lucasea on 14 Nov 2006 09:57 <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message news:ejci47$8ss_030(a)s858.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... > In article <qpidnRHj6e3o0crYnZ2dnUVZ8s6dnZ2d(a)pipex.net>, > "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: >> >><jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message >>news:ej79kg$8qk_015(a)s851.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... >>> In article <M_t5h.736$yE6.654(a)newssvr14.news.prodigy.com>, >>> <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: >>>> >>>>"unsettled" <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote in message >>>>news:f223d$45565fb7$4fe73d4$10122(a)DIALUPUSA.NET... >>>>> Ben Newsam wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> On Sat, 11 Nov 2006 20:23:39 -0000, "T Wake" >>>>>> <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>>Are you implying that access to treatment should be on the basis of >>>>>>>what >>>>>>>the patient _thinks_ they need and can afford, rather than what the >>>>>>>doctor thinks is the best treatment? >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> I would imagine that under a system where anyone can visit any >>>>>> specialist at any time, the best specialists would be inundated with >>>>>> rich hypochondriacs wasting their time. >>>>> >>>>> That doesn't seem to happen much in the US. I don't >>>>> need a referral to see a specialist. >>>> >>>>Sentence #1 doesn't follow from sentence #2 above. In fact, sentence #1 >>>>is >>>>simply wrong. Your anecdote aside, anybody who has an HMO for their >>>>health >>>>care (i.e., most of the people insured through their jobs by corporate >>>>concerns) must go through their PCP (primary care physician) to get to a >>>>specialist...at least they do if they want the HMO to pay for it. >>> >>> And you're stuck with that PCP if the others in the system aren't >>> taking new patients. Thus, if the PCP is an incompetent doctor >>> it takes years to be able to transfer to another's list. Here >>> in the northeast no doctor is local. You have to drive or be >>> driven or go the emergency room. That's it. >> >>Shame you don't have a nationalised health service really, isn't it? > > It is getting there. The reason there aren't local doctor > offices is that they are all collected and put into a big > office building. These centers get fewer and fewer as > the companies who run them consolidate. Now, imagine if you can, a system where there isn't a for-profit company to "run them" and "consolidate". Wouldn't that be a nice change? Eric Lucas
From: Eeyore on 14 Nov 2006 09:59 Ken Smith wrote: > 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. The only practical way to do this would be for the state to purchase insurance for those who couldn't afford it ( low income, disabled etc ). It's just conceivable that with the massive purchasing power this would result in that it could be used to negotiate better terms and conditions and maybe even more attention to costs which clearly doesn't happen now. Graham
From: Eeyore on 14 Nov 2006 10:00
jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: > > >And you like to imply things that just aren't true. You weren't living on > >"$2/day". > > Right. It was $2/month. And you can also clean a whole house in 15 mins ? Graham |