Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: jmfbahciv on 16 Nov 2006 09:30 In article <iocnl293km621af8f379hohrquv2ktr25v(a)4ax.com>, Jonathan Kirwan <jkirwan(a)easystreet.com> wrote: >On Wed, 15 Nov 2006 18:11:30 -0600, unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> >wrote: > >>Jonathan Kirwan angrily proclaims: >> >>snip >> >>> The specific case should not have happened. Imperfect as humans may >>> be admitted as being, this particular case is a simple failure that >>> didn't even have to happen and wouldn't have, in other existing >>> systems in place and operating already, today. >> >>> Excusing the specifics by moving to a useless extreme that applies to >>> anything and says nothing doesn't help us progress at all. >> >>Fact remains we'll never achieve zero defects. >> >>As I said before, I empathize. The reality is terrible >>things can happen to any of us. In your case it was >>a close call, too close for comfort. There was, fortunately, >>enough of a failsafe system in place to overcome stupidity, >>which has no cure. >> >>Try talking to Lucas, Eeyore, and Wake about whether >>or not the woman denying service to your brother should >>have been in that position. Their Marxist socialist >>humanism would have given her the opportunity to hold >>down that job and given her raises because human beings >>should be paid "a living wage." >> >>The reasons we'll never achieve zero defects regardless >>of whatever system is in place are obvious. You're not >>going to be able to replace the people who run >>services with anything that functions better. So long >>as you depend on people, mistakes will be made. >> >>See also Murphy's Law. > >But you are simply talking about a strawman argument that no one is >talking about. You've moved from a real case that should not take >place to a discussion about zero defects in an entire medical care >system. No one said we need to achieve zero defects overall. > >However, this defect should not happen because it is so easily avoided >and actually is, elsewhere. > >Some things you cannot do anything about. This one can be fixed. You haven't analyzied this situation properly. Take a good look at why that computer terminal is there and has to have each emergency patient's data entered and study all the signatures or OKs required to pass that physical point in each hospital. It has to do with information flow and capture. With out that data entry, no medical usage can be recorded. /BAH
From: jmfbahciv on 16 Nov 2006 09:33 In article <PBk6h.25043$TV3.18995(a)newssvr21.news.prodigy.com>, <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: > ><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. > >Yes, and insurance company guidelines say that they only have to substitute >an *identical* generic. If it's identical (i.e., same active ingredient), >then by definition, it works the same. When there is no identical generic, >then they are free to prescribe whatever they want. If they substituted a >generic that is not chemically identical, it was the choice of either the >doctor or the patient. > Generic only covers the ingredients of the medicine. It does not cover the ingredientes of the packaging that medicine comes in. If a person has problems with the packaging, how do you get out of the "generic rule"? /BAH
From: jmfbahciv on 16 Nov 2006 09:35 In article <7KWdnWcl3aqsvsfYnZ2dnUVZ8sqdnZ2d(a)pipex.net>, "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: > ><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. At least they have documentable reasons for decisions. If the payment system is govnerment, then any old political whim will make ruling decrees that don't have to make sense to anybody if it is done to pay off a voting block. /BAH
From: jmfbahciv on 16 Nov 2006 09:40 In article <4559CE33.91A27853(a)hotmail.com>, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > >> 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. > >They're not here ! Now, try to figure why that is so. It's because your administrative system is still based on a local small business model. >> I don't know of any >> who practice within 25 mile radius here. Everybody is a specialist >> so nobody has a general knowledge of medical afflictions. >> Diagnosis is no longer possible without a lab piece of paper. > >Your GPs are specialists too ? No. GPs are general which means they have to have knowledge over a wide range. That isn't "profitable" to do because it requires a long learning time. Think about it. It also requires a lot of experience which cannot be had by production line dispenseion of medical services. A GP has to be able to know each patient and remember what works and what doesn't work for each individual. Medicine is no longer that way in a lot places in the US. It may still happen in tiny towns in the midwest and south, but not anywhere else that has been bitten by the HMO bug. /BAH
From: Ken Smith on 16 Nov 2006 09:45
In article <ejf0n4$8ss_001(a)s792.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote: >In article <eje1on$am6$1(a)blue.rahul.net>, > kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote: >>In article <ejck7c$8qk_001(a)s858.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, >> <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote: [.....] >>Who are the "these people" in the above. It is obvious it is not the >>person I refered to. > >I was talking about the ones who work in stores in my area. Ok, so it is a different person. They guy I was refering to did "security" work. He wore the nice uniform and walked around in the parking lot. His whole purpose was to fool the neighborhood kids into thinking we actually had security. He also kept track of how full the dumpsters were. They were "empty", "full", "full full" or "full full full". [....] >>You are talking of a different person than the one I was using in my >>example. The one in my example would not have been likely to be able to >>do anything like that. Some people with low IQs are gifted but not all of >>them. > >The people who work in our grocery stores do not seem to be >particularly gifted. But they do know about money. Those people are Einsteins compared to the sort I was refering. -- -- kensmith(a)rahul.net forging knowledge |