Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: Eeyore on 16 Nov 2006 12:15 jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > >> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > >> > >> >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. > > > >What the Democrats 'have in mind' isn't the only possibilty ! > > How do you know this? You have already shown a misunderstanding > of the US Constitution, the Federal medical programs, tax > laws, and how we work. I have made no comments about half those things even in this thread. > >> >Remember, the NHS is not insurance. > >> > >> I am telling you that your type of NHS would never be > >> implemented here > > > >I can accept its chances may be slim due to vested interests but that's not > >the point I was trying to make. > > > >> nor would it work. > > > >Just explain *why* it wouldn't work. You keep making this assertion on the > >basis of vague notions. > > I have already told you. Yours is based on small business models. No it isn't. The NHS is one of the largest organisation in the world ! > A single-payer in the US cannot have that; it is too big--3000 miles > wide 1700 miles long. You cannot administer distribution system > using a small business model while keeping the decisions central. Then how do the likes of FedEx and DHL function *worldwide* ? Graham
From: Don Bowey on 16 Nov 2006 12:16 On 11/16/06 2:59 AM, in article n1hol2h34lg57imeobnd9btu9e4dmabv9f(a)4ax.com, "JoeBloe" <joebloe(a)thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote: > On Wed, 15 Nov 2006 21:27:00 -0800, Don Bowey <dbowey(a)comcast.net> > Gave us: > >> On 11/15/06 7:28 PM, in article limnl2114gmfvlaar0okbtbic645gcbuoc(a)4ax.com, >> "JoeBloe" <joebloe(a)thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote: >> >>> On Wed, 15 Nov 2006 14:28:04 +0000, Eeyore >>> <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> Gave us: >>> >>>> >>>> >>>> jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >>>> >>>>> <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Well, Eeyore, this would belie the assertion that she lives too far from >>>>>> a >>>>>> population center to get decent DSL. >>>>> >>>>> I live in a town. There is no DSL line strung. >>>>> You people are starting to get really annoying. >>>> >>>> DSL comes down an ordinary telephone line ! >>>> >>>> Graham >>> >>> Wrong. >>> >>> ADSL REQUIRES a minimum of an ISDN switched POTS line. >>> That means that the customer's first switch has to be ISDN for his >>> area to be an ASDL capable area. THEN his Plain Old Telephone Service >>> line will do DSL. >> >> Wrong. >> >> An ISDN DSL is only two 64 kbit/s Bearer Channels and the 18 kbit/s Data >> Channel which is used for signaling, etc. An ADSL does not require ISDN. > > What an ISDN switch house provides is the digital part. If there > is no digital switch in the first leg of the system, the area is not > capable of providing ADSL service. Still wrong (again). Useless information!!
From: Eeyore on 16 Nov 2006 12:18 unsettled wrote: > jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > > Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > >>[ regarding buying a house on minimum wage ] > >>And if you don't have a large extended family ( most ppl don't ) what then ? > > > > > > There are many ways to accomplish things. It does require setting > > a prioity list. If you want to buy a house, you don't spend money > > on buying pu-pu platters every night. > > It begins with simple things, like buying and learning > to use 24 cent stamps. Both of you seem to think one can affiord a house by saving *pennies*. Do get real. Your answers are quite pathetic and reminiscent of the worst excesses of the Thatcher era here. Graham
From: Don Bowey on 16 Nov 2006 12:33 On 11/16/06 6:48 AM, in article ejhtoa$8qk_006(a)s938.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com, "jmfbahciv(a)aol.com" <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote: > In article <4559D132.A2D0BE21(a)hotmail.com>, > Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> >> >> jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >> >>> "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: >>> >>>> 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. 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. >> >> The same problem arises just as much in the big cities too. >> >> In fact, in a rural location you likely don't have the easy means to spread >> infections that fast anyway, no crowded transit systems and the like for > example. > > I'm in an urban area. Around here, flu shots and nasal spray is > dispensed in the grocery stores. There were no signs that said > the flu clinics were being held and the news said that the > distribution would be fixed soon, so I went to the grocery store > Sunday. I took a chance. Now I've caught what they've put in > this year's flu cocktail. Or as is common and more likely, you had the flu virus before you got your shot. Look around for someone else to blame, and keep a mirror handy. > > Even in rural areas, if your shot and drug distribution centers > are also located in food distribution centers, it is guaranteed > that disease will spread because everybody who buys food will > be exposed to all airborn bugs. > > /BAH
From: Don Bowey on 16 Nov 2006 12:41
On 11/16/06 6:57 AM, in article ejhu89$8qk_009(a)s938.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com, "jmfbahciv(a)aol.com" <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote: > In article <34mkl294ea9uq6ae6sbe451hor0s74hvul(a)4ax.com>, > Ben Newsam <ben.newsam(a)ukonline.co.uk> wrote: >> On Tue, 14 Nov 06 13:51:32 GMT, jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >> >>> In article <455760C3.C0979C51(a)hotmail.com>, >>> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >>>> >>>>> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> I'm wondering if BAH thinks we have our treatment 'rationed'. >>>>> >>>>> Would you know if that happened? Since you can't "shop around" >>>>> and compare, you cannot find out if your treatment is rationed, >>>>> especially its efficacy. >>>> >>>> In one case I wasn't happy with the treatment I got from a concultant so my >>>> doctor referred me to another one. >>> >>> How many referrals are you allowed? >> >> LOL! I think the GP might get a bit ratty if you continually dissed >> the highly qualified consultants, but I don't think there's a >> statutory limit on how awkward you can be. > > Is your GP allowed to keep referring you to specialists forever > without producing any diagnosis? > > /BAH The fact that a referal is made suggests that a tentative or suggestive diagnosis has been made. Is the other option to stop all referals and do nothing more? What would you suggest the PCP do, and have you offered your insight to the PCP? |