Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: jmfbahciv on 16 Nov 2006 08:22 In article <1163509645.701125.130030(a)f16g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>, hill(a)rowland.org wrote: >hill(a)rowland.org wrote: >> Winfield Hill wrote: >> > >> > 4200 postings and still going strong. Amazing. >> >> Wow, now 7200 posts and still going strong. And most >> of the posts were under the original subject title. This >> must be some kind of a record. Certainly it's a stress >> test for the Google Groups web-page display code, etc. > >Amazing, now nearing 9000 posts and still going strong. >Furthermore, a subtle point, the posts haven't strayed far >from the original post in terms of individual thread-segment >lengths, so Google Groups tree view still nicely handles all >the pieces in a narrow sidebar. Really?!!! That's interesting. > BTW, my own usenet-news >server completely lost it on this one long ago. Do you know why it broke? /BAH
From: jmfbahciv on 16 Nov 2006 08:26 In article <4559CC2E.14E3A427(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: >> >> <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: >> >> > >> >> >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. Forcing >> >> everybody to go the insurance route is flat out stupid. >> > >> >You would appear to be seeing the light ! >> >> I see the consequences just fine. Forcing, by law, everyone >> to have insurance is the latest idiocy. Now people are trying >> to change our state constitution to make having insurance >> a right. Please note that these people never say receiving >> medical treatments but merely insurance. > >You need to get away from the concept of commercial >insurance. With that model >there is no drive to save money. *I* do not need to get away from the concept. I am telling you what our Democrats have in mind when they talk about a single-payer system. > >Remember, the NHS is not insurance. I am telling you that your type of NHS would never be implemented here nor would it work. Yours depends on administrating the services locally. That cannot happen in a large country. Your NHS would not work if it had to expand all way to Italy and Russia. /BAH
From: jmfbahciv on 16 Nov 2006 08:33 In article <ejckm3$mf9$1(a)blue.rahul.net>, kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote: >In article <ejcg0c$8ss_016(a)s858.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, > <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote: >[.....] >>I see the consequences just fine. Forcing, by law, everyone >>to have insurance is the latest idiocy. > >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. The same problems will still exist. So everybody has a piece of paper that says "insurance". That will not create any infrastructure needed to deliver the services. It's a smoke and mirrors political game. > >> Now people are trying >>to change our state constitution to make having insurance >>a right. Please note that these people never say receiving >>medical treatments but merely insurance. > >So long as the US doesn't have a NHS, that's the best you can do. You can >ensure that the money to pay for the survices is not the problem. You >can't ensure that services can be had without something like a NHS. You can if you stop forcing all medical services to be government- mandated, govenrment-sponsored and govnerment-funded. That forces all decisions to made by bureaucrats and non-medical personnel. Look at how this happened in the HMOs. These are small organizations compared to one that is a single-payer. > >In a free market system, people try to externalize the costs which means >that, in the current situation, the expensive and hard to do things get >dumped onto the public. In health care, this leads to the doctors wanting >to all be plastic surgeons in Holliwood and not fixing broken toes in >Teeneck. Doctors are dropping out because they cannot make money to cover their living expenses; they cannot make judgements without big brother's OK; they spend 65% of their time doing paper work instead of providing medical services to each individual patient. They are forced to dispense medical treatments in a production line model. /BAH
From: jmfbahciv on 16 Nov 2006 08:52 In article <85lkl2h9820o3qfuju3897hq2706335epl(a)4ax.com>, Ben Newsam <ben.newsam(a)ukonline.co.uk> wrote: >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. Massachusetts' latest idiocy has written into law that, if you don't "have" (whatever that means) medical insurance, you will be penalized through your income tax form. Until I see how this law is laid out on the forms, I can't tell how screwed the taxpayers are going to be. I beginning to think that the legislature just wrote themselves a blank check against everybody's bank accounts. This also implies that the Mass. DoRevenue has to have a data retrieveal path to medical records. This one makes me very wary of what our brand of insane Democrats are up to. >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. Yes. Extraordinary events is what insurance is for. However, AARP lobbied against a good idea and it was repealed. My Mom figured out what that insurance would have cost her. $200/year seemed to be a fine premium for extraordinary medical costs. /BAH
From: jmfbahciv on 16 Nov 2006 08:53
In article <4559CC71.93F41341(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 >> >> >> 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. > >How can you *force* ppl to have something they perhaps can't afford ? The government body that passes tax laws passes one. /BAH |