Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: T Wake on 14 Nov 2006 15:32 <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message news:ejchsq$8ss_028(a)s858.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... > In article <0cqgl2dqjvpgq43fn7hve70ltroijupb8t(a)4ax.com>, > Ben Newsam <ben.newsam(a)ukonline.co.uk> wrote: >>On Mon, 13 Nov 06 10:52:35 GMT, jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >> >>>In article <9offl211jg34dcjnvbklqkeetfaa686dq1(a)4ax.com>, >>> Ben Newsam <ben.newsam(a)ukonline.co.uk> wrote: >>>>On Sun, 12 Nov 06 14:00:10 GMT, jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >>>>>In article <455638E2.B76D8B7A(a)hotmail.com>, >>>>> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>I'm wondering if BAH thinks we have our treatment 'rationed'. >>>>> >>>>>Would you know if that happened? Since you can't "shop around" >>>>>and compare, you cannot find out if your treatment is rationed, >>>>>especially its efficacy. >>>> >>>>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. It takes >>>a long time to figure out that something isn't working and then >>>decades to adjust policies that will fix it. Meanwhile the >>>original problem has been replaced with new problems. None >>>ever get fixed because the lag time is so long. >> >>What I meant was that an insurance-based system will refuse to treat >>people who it considers are not insured sooner than one which does not >>depend on insurance. > > Yes. > >>That means that, should you need a heart >>transplant, for instance, the only reason you might not get one (other >>than medical reasons) is because of the limits of the system, not >>because of your lack of adequate premiums. > > > Now consider the rhetoric of our politicians who keep promising > health insurance....not medical care but insurance. Now consider how much better off you would be with an NHS as opposed to what you are saying here. An NHS is a good thing. It is not the same thing you seem to think it is.
From: T Wake on 14 Nov 2006 15:58 <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message news:ejci0m$8ss_029(a)s858.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... > In article <s5SdnSxjBZToWcXYnZ2dnUVZ8sOdnZ2d(a)pipex.net>, > "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: >> >><jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message >>news:ej9ipj$8ss_001(a)s785.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... >>> In article <9offl211jg34dcjnvbklqkeetfaa686dq1(a)4ax.com>, >>> Ben Newsam <ben.newsam(a)ukonline.co.uk> wrote: >>>>On Sun, 12 Nov 06 14:00:10 GMT, jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >>>>>In article <455638E2.B76D8B7A(a)hotmail.com>, >>>>> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>I'm wondering if BAH thinks we have our treatment 'rationed'. >>>>> >>>>>Would you know if that happened? Since you can't "shop around" >>>>>and compare, you cannot find out if your treatment is rationed, >>>>>especially its efficacy. >>>> >>>>All health systems of whatever sort are limited by cost. An >>>>insurance-based scheme will give up long before the NHS, however. >>> >>> That is one of the reasons an NHS doesn't work well. >> >>Really? It works better than an insurance based one. > > So far. But you have a backup system in place that you call > private practice. You really have kept the "old" ways. It isnt a back up. It is an option people can take if they want it. >> >>> It takes >>> a long time to figure out that something isn't working and then >>> decades to adjust policies that will fix it. >> >>Incorrect. Try again. > > That's how governments work. They are supposed to work slowly. It may well be how governments work, so what? <snip>
From: T Wake on 14 Nov 2006 15:59 <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote in message news:D0l6h.25060$TV3.24671(a)newssvr21.news.prodigy.com... > > "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. /BAH may not be aware of it, but she really is heading down the Marxist route. Her "class war" posts seem to be tailing off a bit now, however I am sure she wants everyone back to self sufficiency, working the land...
From: T Wake on 14 Nov 2006 16:00 <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. You see, this still isn't a "national health service," nor is it progressing towards one.
From: T Wake on 14 Nov 2006 16:01
<jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message news:ejchi8$8ss_025(a)s858.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... > In article <dZ6dnXZEJqkw0crYnZ2dnUVZ8qidnZ2d(a)pipex.net>, > "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: >> >><jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message >>news:ej79a0$8qk_013(a)s851.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... >>> In article <maydndxa-ZzRrMvYnZ2dnUVZ8tednZ2d(a)pipex.net>, >>> "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: >>>> >>>><jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message >>>>news:ej4feq$8ss_006(a)s977.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... >>>>> In article <kkcal2ll82lsuqk1pk5uanjcat876o49ei(a)4ax.com>, >>>>> Ben Newsam <ben.newsam(a)ukonline.co.uk> wrote: >>>>>>On Fri, 10 Nov 2006 15:51:47 GMT, <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>><jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>news:ej22vn$8qk_014(a)s995.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> It is decreasing towards zero as conversion to a few payers >>>>>>>> increases. What do you think will happen when the few payers >>>>>>>> become one? >>>>>>> >>>>>>>When that one payer doesn't have the profit motive that's currently >>>>>>>driving >>>>>>>prices? Everybody will have access. Check out the cost (and I'm >>>>>>>talking >>>>>>>the total cost to society) and availability of the UK system versus >>>>>>>ours. >>>>>> >>>>>>AFAIAC, the biggest advantage of our (UK) system isn't the quality of >>>>>>the service, although it is very good at day to day stuff like mending >>>>>>broken bits and plugging leaks, but the peace of mind that comes from >>>>>>not having to worry about whether one is covered or not. If you need >>>>>>to see a doctor, you go and see a doctor, and if you need treatment, >>>>>>you get it. It's as simple as that. Yes, of course the system is >>>>>>strapped for cash, and certain treatments and drugs aren't available >>>>>>on the National Health, but that will always be the case with whatever >>>>>>system is in place, whether public or private. >>>>> >>>>> And how do you find a doctor? >>>> >>>>Well in my case, there is a GP practice about 4 miles away. If I was >>>>somewhere else and it was urgent I would go to see the nearest doctor. >>>> >>>>> Are you assigned to a doctor >>>>> who has to OK other specialists' services? >>>> >>>>Not in the manner you mean. The doctor has to OK the medical need for >>>>the >>>>specialist, but it really shouldn't be any other way. >>>> >>>>> Can you walk into >>>>> a cardiologist's office and get treated or do you have to >>>>> be "vetted" through a series of physicians' offices and labs >>>>> to get to that heart doctor? >>>> >>>>If I need to be treated by a cardiologist I will be. The vetting process >>>>may >>>>well exist but not in the manner you hope to imply here. Patients are >>>>assessed as to the clinical need for treatment they have. If the patient >>>>needs to see a cardiologist, s/he gets to see one. >>>> >>>>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? >>> >>> In the US, we have to be our own experts. >> >>But, without six years medical school and subsequent real world experience >>you are not experts. If you had an NHS you wouldn't have to self diagnose. > > When JMF was dying, I had to learn nursing procedures and doctor > procedures without the benefit of schooling. I became an expert > in minimizing side effects of drugs he was taking and made > all kinds of mechanical assists to keep him as comfortable as > possible. The ultimate question was who would die first? Him or > me? > > My Dad is now going through the same bullshit only he has no > advocate who will speak up and say no. On top of it all, > their assigned "GP" is stupid. See, you are an advocate of the NHS after all. |