Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: Eeyore on 16 Nov 2006 10:04 jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: > > >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"? Are you *serious* ? Is a different colour box a problem ? Graham
From: jmfbahciv on 16 Nov 2006 09:59 In article <SoudncMysq5JusfYnZ2dnUVZ8sSdnZ2d(a)pipex.net>, "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: <snip> >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. Since you have posted this reply in various forms about 50 times so far, I'm going to ^R all of your posts from now on. You have become more than annoying. /BAH
From: jmfbahciv on 16 Nov 2006 10:01 In article <4559D407.2773F6CD(a)hotmail.com>, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > >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 ? Sure it would be silly. However when will the socialists begin to demande that all seats be in first class? /BAH
From: jmfbahciv on 16 Nov 2006 10:03 In article <4559D49D.3DCA358(a)hotmail.com>, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > >> "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: >> >> >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. > >Over here those 'companies' running the practices of 6 or 8 or more and their >support team are owned by the doctors themselves. Like I have been saying, you are still at the small business model. That is rapidly changing in the US. Doctors can't afford to own their own practices anymore. /BAH
From: jmfbahciv on 16 Nov 2006 10:06
In article <77b3$4559e277$49ecf8a$7649(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > >> In article <8diel2lgi476464dbdf8rvlj6r8q9ngkm4(a)4ax.com>, >> Ben Newsam <ben.newsam(a)ukonline.co.uk> wrote: >> >>>On Sun, 12 Nov 06 12:40:15 GMT, jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >>> >>> >>>>In article <4555F0FA.3C4FF876(a)hotmail.com>, >>>> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> >>>>>unsettled wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>I am at a slight loss in the >>>>>>medicine coverage if I use Canadian pricing as >>>>>>the basis, but way ahead if I use USA prices. >>>>> >>>>>Why are the same medicines more expensive in the USA ? >>>> >>>>We pay the development costs. >>> >>>What about drugs from Roche or Clin-Midy and so on? >> >> >> Sigh! We pay the development costs. If Roche didn't include >> theirs in US prices, they'ld sell a lot more drugs. > >What's not discussed in this thread is the fact that >the manufacturers have been advertising on US TV for >some time now that if you can't afford the medicines >you need you should contact them because they have >programs to assist those living in poverty needing >their products. Those have existed all along. It does seem odd that the drug companies are started to adverstise these on TV when the Drug Medicare Bill became law. /BAH |