Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: T Wake on 16 Nov 2006 14:37 <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message news:eji2kv$8qk_033(a)s938.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... > In article <455C728A.F04E16DC(a)hotmail.com>, > 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. Because there is at least _one_ other option - a UK style NHS. There are *probably* more. Why do you think there is only _one_ possibility? >> >> >>> >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. Nope. Stop making authorative pronouncements on things about which you know nothing. > 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. Well, you've used a false assumption to make this true. The NHS does not have "central" decision making system for clinical decisions.
From: T Wake on 16 Nov 2006 14:41 "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message news:455C9CB7.A22D3183(a)hotmail.com... > > > jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > >> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> >> 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 ! "At a London awards ceremony sponsored by the Guardian, Foluke Ajayi, head of NHS careers at NHS employers, said its success this year reflected the reality of the health service, which is the third largest employer in the world and the largest in Europe." http://education.guardian.co.uk/students/graduation/story/0,,1779160,00.html Also: http://www.nhsemployers.org/pay-conditions/pay-conditions-251.cfm http://www.thes.co.uk/story.aspx?story_id=91866 https://www.uktradeinvest.gov.uk/ukti/ShowDoc/BEA+Repository/345/371415 http://www.tohm.ie/resources/eventpapers/20030219180211.html Pretty good going for a "small business model." Basically /BAH has no idea what she is talking about. She "feels" an NHS would be wrong and has assumed it wont work. She is now casting about to find reasons to reinforce her belief that the NHS wont work. As each one is dismantled she finds a new one. Sadly, others in this thread are using the same argument to defend the indefensible.
From: krw on 16 Nov 2006 14:50 In article <455C768D.94BACEDB(a)hotmail.com>, rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com says... > > > jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > > > Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > >I'm asking " How about someone on that minimum wage job for example ? " as in > > >.... they're on a minimum wage NOW - not at some hypothetical point in the > > > future after their wages have increased. > > > > You keep ignoring the fact that everybody starts out at a low > > wage in their working life. As they age, they should be getting > > life experience that is salable for more money. > > Please stop evading the question. > > How does a ( young ) person on low wages get any medical tretment ? The same way their parents get medical treatment. For example, my son was on my insurance until he was 23. Though he had his own when he was 22, I didn't trust it. ...turns out his is at least as good as mine. > > You do keep ignoring that krw was talking about kids who > > start working at minimum wage levels; these people do not > > have to feed themselves, pay rent and all the other expenses > > of living independently. > > Some will have to. Then they'd better not have to take a low wage job. > You're generalising again to avoid real issues. Nope. -- Keith
From: T Wake on 16 Nov 2006 14:51 <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message news:ejhpc1$8qk_001(a)s938.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... > In article <ejckm3$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. Insurance is a bad way to provide health care. Insurance companies will ensure that the money they get _from_ people is much greater than the costs of running the system and any potential payouts. The advantage to the individual is that the cost of a single operation is borne by the whole base of insured people. Can you see what the disadvantages are? Can you think of any advantages of an insurance based system over the UK's NHS?
From: T Wake on 16 Nov 2006 14:51
<jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message news:ejhqg7$8qk_002(a)s938.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... > 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. How do they pay for it if they cant afford it? Please let me know because I cant afford an Aston Martin DB9 and I really want one. |