Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: Eeyore on 14 Nov 2006 18:44 T Wake wrote: > "Don Bowey" <dbowey(a)comcast.net> wrote in message > > "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: > >> > >>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." This used to happen in the UK too before the NHS. It wasn't considered to be a very satisfactory arrangement. Graham
From: Ben Newsam on 14 Nov 2006 18:48 On Tue, 14 Nov 2006 14:43:15 +0000 (UTC), kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote: >If you are going to have an insurance based system and not let the dead >bodies of those without insurance clutter the streets, you really need to >make sure everyone has insurance. If you don't then an irresponsible >fraction of society can become a burden on the rest. And unfortunately, that would tend to raise the cost of insurance. IMO, making insurance premiums mandatory isn't really insurance, it is a form of taxation. Now, there's nothing wrong with taxation, but pretending it is something else is a bit disingenuous. From my POV, I will insure something if I cannot afford to stand the possibility of loss. IOW, I don't insure, say, a cup in case I break it. If that happens I just buy another one. I *do* insure against anything I cannot afford to replace, such as losing all my possessions in a fire, because it would cost me too much to replace everything all at once.
From: Ben Newsam on 14 Nov 2006 18:22 On Tue, 14 Nov 2006 11:58:18 -0500, krw <krw(a)att.bizzzz> wrote: >In article <sirhl21983tk9o21n39hsn7ebapn7demdi(a)4ax.com>, >ben.newsam(a)ukonline.co.uk says... >> On Mon, 13 Nov 2006 15:18:42 -0500, krw <krw(a)att.bizzzz> wrote: >> >> > Welfare ("benefits") is for >> >socialists. >> >> I am sure that, if I find you one day having fallen out of a (almost >> typed "your" there) tree or had some other kind of accident that would >> require the intervention of someone else to prevent you bleeding or >> freezing to death (or whatever), you will entirely understand if I do >> absolutely nothing to help you or in any way conribute to your >> welfare, because you do not believe in such things and would regard me >> as a nasty socialist. OK, I can live with that. >> >SO you freely admit to being an idiot. Can you read?
From: Ben Newsam on 14 Nov 2006 18:35 On Tue, 14 Nov 2006 07:49:07 -0800, Don Bowey <dbowey(a)comcast.net> wrote: >On 11/14/06 2:01 AM, in article hi2jl2t5p328ckq0c5gmf0336646ohi12u(a)4ax.com, >"Ben Newsam" <ben.newsam(a)ukonline.co.uk> wrote: > >(snip) > >It's difficult to want to agree with such an arrogant person as you...... So >I guess I won't. <Shrug>
From: Ben Newsam on 14 Nov 2006 18:37
On Tue, 14 Nov 2006 12:09:52 +0000, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >Ben Newsam wrote: > >> ISTR that each GP's list >> may have about 10,000 patients, but I don't know the actual number. > >You're way over the right figure there Ben. 2,000 is around average. OK, thanks. |