Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: T Wake on 14 Nov 2006 17:02 "Don Bowey" <dbowey(a)comcast.net> wrote in message news:C17F7B62.4CA17%dbowey(a)comcast.net... > On 11/14/06 12:21 PM, in article ZrGdnQlHbdSiuMfYRVnygQ(a)pipex.net, "T > Wake" > <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: > >> >> <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message >> news:ejch86$8ss_023(a)s858.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... >>> In article <guadndllr-dd1srYRVnytg(a)pipex.net>, >>> "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: >>>> >>>> <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message >>>> news:ej796a$8qk_012(a)s851.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... >>>>> In article <c5b06$45565eec$4fe73d4$10122(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, >>>>> unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: >>>>>> T Wake wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote in message >>>>>>> news:eNp5h.7027$yl4.5770(a)newssvr12.news.prodigy.com... >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> "Ben Newsam" <ben.newsam(a)ukonline.co.uk> wrote in message >>>>>>>> news:e96cl2tviek822ftetj8rtphkkoold1oqe(a)4ax.com... >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> (or if >>>>>>>>> immobile, I ask to be visited at home), >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Is this a standard form of care in the UK? We haven't had doctors >>>>>>>> in >>>>>>>> general make house-calls here in the US for at least 40 years. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Where I live it is very common place, but there is a high percentage >>>>>>> of >>>>>>> older people in this village. Generally speaking though doctors will >>>>>>> make >>>>>>> house calls as required - it has been a couple of years since I last >>>>>>> needed >>>>>>> one, but there was no difficulty. My wife phoned the Health Centre >>>>>>> and >>>>>>> told >>>>>>> the receptionist I was unable to get out of bed, three hours later >>>>>>> the >>>>>>> doctor was round to treat me. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The health centres also have nurse practitioners (extra trained >>>>>>> nurses) >>>>>>> who >>>>>>> spend a lot of time doing home visits. >>>>>> >>>>>> We have a local physician who makes scheduled house >>>>>> calls every Thursday. His office is used by a >>>>>> visiting podiatrist that day. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Now note all the times you all wrote "local". That's important. >>>>> The US is big. There isn't much "local" anymore. You go >>>>> into the city or urban centers and get into their medical >>>>> production line. >>>> >>>> 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. >> >> Nope. Local does not imply size. My local GP was at a major teaching >> hospital. It certainly was _not_ 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 still conflate small with local. In your example, you make the >> assumption there is only one doctor and that the practice nurse is >> incapable >> of treating patients with flu. If the local health centre has six doctors >> (like my current one) and four practice nurses (like mine), they could >> handle 600 patients an hour in your example. Ok, it may take 12 hours to >> treat _everyone_ but unless there were 10,000 doctors it is going to take >> longer than five minutes. > > If I recall correctly, insurance companies allow 15 minutes for the > doctor. > Sometimes the Dr. can do the job in that time, or less, but your example > errs. You cannot assume the patient has (only) the flu, and it takes time > to get more info. > > Don It wasn't my example.
From: T Wake on 14 Nov 2006 17:03 "Don Bowey" <dbowey(a)comcast.net> wrote in message news:C17F796C.4CA15%dbowey(a)comcast.net... > On 11/14/06 12:11 PM, in article > IL2dnVlH_dmRvsfYnZ2dnUVZ8s-dnZ2d(a)pipex.net, > "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: > >> >> <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? >> >> > > Many doctors will write off the cost of care for people who cannot afford > to > pay, and start them off with free "samples" of meds. It's rare to hear of > someone who is refused the help of a doctor. On the other-hand, a Dr. > doesn't have to accept a patient who is abusive or has a known habit of > lieing to the Dr. Fair one, but the system still relies on doctors treating people "out of the goodness of their hearts."
From: Eeyore on 14 Nov 2006 18:36 T Wake wrote: > <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote > > "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: > >><jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote > >> > >>> After my tuition and dorm fee were paid, I lived on $2/month when > >>> I went to college; the $2 included clothes washing and Tampax. > >> > >>I defy you to feed yourself on $2 a week. I defy you to feed yourself, > >>travel to and from work and afford work clothes on $2 a week. > > > > I defy you to think of ways to stop spending money. > > I can think of lots of ways. What does that have to do with what I said? You > claim to have lived on $2 a month as an example of how people should be so > happy to live on $200 per week. I say not only are you living in a mystical > past of fifty years ago, but living on a wage of $200 per week in this day > and age is far from easy. I wonder how she got health cover on $2 a month ! Graham
From: Eeyore on 14 Nov 2006 18:37 T Wake wrote: > "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote > > lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net wrote: > >> "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote > >> > 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 ? > >> > >> The thing that she conveniently glosses over is that 1) it was in 1960s > >> dollars, about a factor of 10 - 100 higher when adjusted for inflation, > >> and > >> 2) she was also paying tuition, room and board, which probably added at > >> least $50/month in 1960 dollars, or $1000/month in 2006 dollars. That's > >> a > >> far cry from talking about $2/month as if it were 2006 dollars, which is > >> what the discussion was about...living on <$100/month total salary in > >> 2006. > > > > In 1973 ? my first full-time job paid ?2000 p.a. ( ? 38.46 weekly ). It > > seemed > > like a good rate of pay for a youngster at the time. Heck, my rent was > > only ?28.16 p.c.m too ! > > The Thatcher years were not pleasant :-) Fortunately I was in the Army and > we had massive pay rises :-) Which bit of it were you in ? Graham
From: Eeyore on 14 Nov 2006 18:40
T Wake wrote: > "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message > > > > From BAH's response to a post of mine about the same matter, I got the > > impression that she may be a long distance from a major population centre. > > > > Even so, 512k DSL will work ok over a heck of a long distance. > > > > My first 'broadband' was actually 256k ( or was it even 128k ? ) but was > > so convenient just from the perspective of being always on. I got the > > 'cheapy' version to trial it and it got upgraded to 512k shortly after > anyway. > > Unless her phone line is a bit of soggy string with a cup on the end, she > can use a 56k modem. Worked well enough for me to browse the net until 2000 > :-) Why she insists on a 14400 one (cos it has lights so she can diagnose > the problems - but her service is so good there are no problems......) is > beyond me. Indeed. My 56k modem has 9 leds too btw. :-) Graham |