Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: Eeyore on 14 Nov 2006 10:02 jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > I'm waiting until India and China figure out how to run clean rooms. No problem in China for sure. India, well......... Graham
From: Eeyore on 14 Nov 2006 10:04 lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net wrote: > <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message > > "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: > > >>Local doesn't have to mean small. When I lived in the centre of London I > >>had a local GP and a local health centre. > > > > Yes it does to mean small. A local health center has a small > > capacity. Even if you assume that all medical appointments will > > take 5 minutes, the capacity of any center is severely limited. > > Say it is in a population of 10,000 and all come down with a > > flu in the same 24 hours. The center won't be able to handle > > 100, let along 10,000. > > You see to have this weird perception that there will be no doctors under > the NHS. Why do you assume this? Sounds to me like they have roughly the > same concentration of doctors as in the US. Around 2000 patients per doctor is about average AIUI. Graham
From: jmfbahciv on 14 Nov 2006 10:00 In article <ytidnQLKcunpX8XYnZ2dnUVZ8q-dnZ2d(a)pipex.net>, "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: > ><jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message >news:ej9mvv$8qk_008(a)s785.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... >> In article <45574ED9.32805BEE(a)hotmail.com>, >> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> >>>jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >>> >>>> "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: >>>> ><jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message >>>> >>>> >> You are parroting politicians again. What is really happening >>>> >> is that people, who do not have access to a GP, go to the >>>> >> most expensive health care facility for treatment. >>>> >> Now instead of concentrating on how they can't afford the most >>>> >> expensive service, why not concentrate on why they cannot get >>>> >> access to the usual general practioner's services. That is >>>> >> the problem. And it has become exasperated by everything being >>>> >> based on whether you have insurance or not. >>>> > >>>> >You present a strong case for the introduction of a nationalise >>>> >healthcare >>>> >system, where all have equal access to healthcare resources based on >> medical >>>> >need. >>>> >>>> There will not be access. That's what I'm trying to get >>>> you to understand. You can have oodles of insurance but, >>>> if you can't get an appt., you might as well use their >>>> forms for toilet paper. >>> >>>So, the insurance based model is broken is it not ? >> >> It is now since the HMOs have become the preferred payers. > >An NHS would cure that. No, it would not. What Hillary was planning was a worse case. I suppose, us USAians could join your NHS and go to your doctors for service. Perhaps you would then learn some of the problems of having to service too many people with finite resources. /BAH
From: Eeyore on 14 Nov 2006 10:07 jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > Ben Newsam <ben.newsam(a)ukonline.co.uk> wrote: > >On Sun, 12 Nov 06 12:40:15 GMT, jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > >> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > >>>Why are the same medicines more expensive in the USA ? > >> > >>We pay the development costs. > > > >What about drugs from Roche or Clin-Midy and so on? > > Sigh! We pay the development costs. If Roche didn't include > theirs in US prices, they'ld sell a lot more drugs. What exactly are you saying here ? Are you suggesting that the R&D costs of European drug companies are paid exclusively by the USA ? Maybe Roche sends a bill to the Whitehouse ? Graham
From: Eeyore on 14 Nov 2006 10:10
lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net wrote: > "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message > > jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > >> "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: > >> > >> >$30 a month is massively expensive for USENET. > >> > >> I don't think so. The service provided was 7x24, never down > >> and the people knew what was going whenever something odd > >> was happening. When I said I got what I paid for, I meant > >> that the service was superb, timely, and absent of all bullshit. > > > > I pay $2.95 for news access and it seems just fine too. 24/7 is the norm. > > Most ISPs in the US provide some sort of news access included in the service > fee--$10 - $20 for dialup, and $30 - $40 for DSL. But then I'm sure BAH is > going to trot out some sob story about how her ISP is *sooooo* much worse > than anything anywhere else in the US... Many ISPs here also included news access but it's been on the decline for some time. My previous ISP did so but was cutting back. They removed binaries groups and clearly weren't addressing performance issues on their servers either which was becoming annoying. Graham |