Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: T Wake on 14 Nov 2006 15:10 <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. You see, it would have been so much better to go for an NHS. Every one of your posts is crying out for it, you just don't realise it.
From: T Wake on 14 Nov 2006 15:11 <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message news:ejcga8$8ss_018(a)s858.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... > In article <455759E3.AAAFF753(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: >>> >>> >> 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. >> >>You're not addressing my point, ot you're arguing in favour of inadequate > health >>care for ppl who aren't well off. >> >>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 > without >>starving. > > You are making too many assumptions. EAch sentence assumes different > aged people. > >> >>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. Ok, they may well get a pay rise. Hopefully they can stave off their health care needs until that time. What if they cant? What if the 20 year old person trying to live on minimum wage needs health care. How can s/he afford it?
From: T Wake on 14 Nov 2006 15:12 <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. So much better to have an NHS then, and get away from corporate rulings decreeing medical care.
From: T Wake on 14 Nov 2006 15:13 <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message news:ejcgjj$8ss_020(a)s858.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... > In article <6qeel21eiq2hk5e0pf9i7p1g25flrpn05d(a)4ax.com>, > Ben Newsam <ben.newsam(a)ukonline.co.uk> wrote: >>On Sun, 12 Nov 06 13:47:55 GMT, jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >> >>>So you do have to be vetted. You already have limited access. >>>When, or if, your GP infrastructure goes to pieces, you'll have >>>no access. >> >><Boggle> That's plain daft. WHy should it fall to pieces? Or rather >>why would the GP infrastructure fall to pieces leaving the hospital >>and consultant system in place? They are all part of the same thing. > > GPs in the US are rarer than hen's teeth. I don't know of any > who practice within 25 mile radius here. Everybody is a specialist Think about why? You have a market driven system and people want to make as much money as possible. > so nobody has a general knowledge of medical afflictions. > Diagnosis is no longer possible without a lab piece of paper. What you need is an NHS.
From: T Wake on 14 Nov 2006 15:16
<jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message news:ejcgor$8ss_021(a)s858.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... > In article <45575B3E.950D84F4(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: > > <snip> > >>> When, or if, your GP infrastructure goes to pieces, you'll have >>> no access. >> >>Why would the GP infrastructure 'go to pieces' any more >>than anything else in the >>developed world ??? >> >>GP's *like* the NHS system ! It works in everyone's interest. > > So far it does. It was in trouble in the 70s, I think. > > >>You seem to be looking for non-existent flaws. > > What are you going to do when your GPs find better work > in other countries and move? Isn't your country already > importing people to do the work? Why are you looking for non-existent flaws? The NHS is not the problem, recruiting doctors is getting _slightly_ harder because less youngsters do enough science at school to get into medical school. Totally different issue - the US has more than its own share of educational problems: http://www.newscientist.com/channel/opinion/us/mg19225776.100-homeschooling-special-preach-your-children-well.html |