Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: Eeyore on 14 Nov 2006 10:12 lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net wrote: > <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message > > Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > >> > >>Start considering instead why the US health care system doesn't work well > >>and costs so much ! > > > > That's what I've been talking about all along. An NHS does not and > > will not work. > > That you feel justified in extrapolating from your first sentence to your > second sentence is simply mind-boggling. You're saying "The US system is > broken, therefore we cannot change it." It's like you look for ways for you > personally to keep things from working the way that they're designed to. Either BAH still doesn't understand properly how the NHS works or she's so resistant to new ideas that she's simply blocking them out irrationally. Graham
From: lucasea on 14 Nov 2006 10:11 "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message news:4559D407.2773F6CD(a)hotmail.com... > > > jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > >> "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: >> ><jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message >> >> Ben Newsam <ben.newsam(a)ukonline.co.uk> wrote: >> >> >>>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 exists in the same way that airlines have first class seats. It's not a > backup. > > To say that you should get rid of economy / coach seats because some ppl > fly > first class would be silly - no ? And it would be a terribly Marxist thing to suggest. Eric Lucas
From: lucasea on 14 Nov 2006 10:15 <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message news:ejck7c$8qk_001(a)s858.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... > In article <ej7mj4$9m2$4(a)blue.rahul.net>, > kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote: >> >>The result is that this person will work for the minimum wage. > > Unless there is another grocery store who has job slots open > and wants to attract new people. So you assume this competition will make jobs magically appear...and yet at the same time, you assume that competition in a nationalized health care system will make all doctors disappear. You really do need to get consistent in your assumptions, even if you're unwilling to make those assumptions match with reality. Eric Lucas
From: Don Bowey on 14 Nov 2006 10:17 On 11/13/06 4:55 PM, in article 455913F2.8AFC7928(a)hotmail.com, "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > unsettled wrote: > >> What sort of preventive treatment is there for cancer? > > Good diet avoiding excessive red meat and processed foods and including plenty > of > fresh fruit and veg. > > Not smoking. > > Avoidance of exposure to carcinogens. But that includes not charring my steaks.... I'll need to skip that one. But I'll make up for it by using a good wine with which to enjoy it. Don > > Graham >
From: Eeyore on 14 Nov 2006 10:21
jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: > ><jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message > >> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > >> > >>>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. She wasn't planning a proper NHS though AIUI. > I suppose, us USAians could join your NHS and go to your doctors > for service. For $2291 per head p.a. why not ? The air fares would be expensive though. > Perhaps you would then learn some of the problems > of having to service too many people with finite resources. We know all about having to do that ! The NHS is expert at it. Graham |