Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: T Wake on 16 Nov 2006 14:55 <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message news:ejhqqi$8qk_004(a)s938.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... > In article <4559CCFD.54F42FDC(a)hotmail.com>, > Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> >> >>jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >> >>> >>> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> >In the above you seem to think that poorer ppl *really could* pay say >>> >$300 >>> >p.m. >>> >for drugs. I say they simply don't have the kind of income to afford it >>> >withoutstarving. >>> >>> You are making too many assumptions. EAch sentence assumes different >>> aged people. >> >>I made no asumptions. You did however. >> >> >>> > How about someone on that minimum wage job for example ? >>> >>> Here you seem to assume that all people who work at >>> a minimum wage job will always work for that money, never >>> get salary nor benefit increases, nor work at better-paying jobs. >> >>No. You're trying to dodge the question. >> >>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. No, he hasn't ignored that. Did you read the post you've replied to? Yes, people would hopefully get pay rises in life. How does the person starting out on minimum wage manage it. Not how do they cope when they are 40 and earning a decent amount. _You_ seem to ignore the fact that some people do indeed have to live on minimum wage for a long time. > 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. Yes, some people can live on minimum wage. What about the ones who don't live at home?
From: T Wake on 16 Nov 2006 14:56 <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message news:ejhrgl$8qk_002(a)s938.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... > In article <fihll2tk6459claohe0hvb2uqr3t3ck5dd(a)4ax.com>, > Jonathan Kirwan <jkirwan(a)easystreet.com> wrote: >>On Wed, 15 Nov 2006 03:52:26 +0000, Eeyore >><rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> >>>Don Bowey wrote: >>> >>>> "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >>>> > T Wake wrote: >>>> >> "Don Bowey" <dbowey(a)comcast.net> wrote in message >>>> >>> "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> What if the 20 year old person trying to live on >>>> >>>> minimum wage needs health care. How can s/he afford it? >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> Many doctors will write off the cost of care for people who cannot > afford >>>> >>> to >>>> >>> pay, and start them off with free "samples" of meds. It's rare to > hear of >>>> >>> someone who is refused the help of a doctor. On the other-hand, a >>>> >>> Dr. >>>> >>> doesn't have to accept a patient who is abusive or has a known >>>> >>> habit > of >>>> >>> lieing to the Dr. >>>> >> >>>> >> Fair one, but the system still relies on doctors treating people >>>> >> "out > of the >>>> >> goodness of their hearts." >>>> > >>>> > This used to happen in the UK too before the NHS. It wasn't >>>> > considered > to be a >>>> > very satisfactory arrangement. >>>> > >>>> > Graham >>>> >>>> Not satisfactory to whom? Screw them. >>>> >>>> If it satisfies the doctor's wish to make someone well, that's enough. >>> >>>Heck, all credit to the doctors of the day but it meant that ppl were > reluctant to >>>seek treatment if they were poor. >> >>On your last part of your response, I'll add this: >> >>Most of my life, I have been uninsured -- meaning, self-insured. I >>wasn't particularly poor during that time, but I definitely would >>weigh whether or not to take my own children to the doctor, wondering >>and balancing the risks and costs. >> >>The fault of any mistakes I made over those years are entirely mine, >>of course, but I don't believe that the health care of children should >>be put to such questions, at all. Parents should not be asking >>themselves the questions I asked myself. I don't think there is any >>excuse at all for the fact that the US doesn't provide a baseline of >>health care for all children, regardless of means. >> >>Our society is better than that, I think. > > My folks didn't ask those questions. When we were sick we > went to the doctor. The Doc would take payment in chickens > or produce or something. Very middle eastern. It seems not only are you becoming more and more socialist (With a leaning towards Engles), you are heading down the road of wanting a Taliban-esque regime. Remind me again which middle class luxuries we should be willing to get rid of?
From: T Wake on 16 Nov 2006 14:59 "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message news:455BBFAA.7E91B106(a)hotmail.com... > > > T Wake wrote: > >> "Don Bowey" <dbowey(a)comcast.net> wrote >> >"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> >> T Wake wrote: >> >>> "Don Bowey" <dbowey(a)comcast.net> wrote in >> >>>> "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: >> >>>>> >> >>>>> What if the 20 year old person trying to live on >> >>>>> minimum wage needs health care. How can s/he afford it? >> >>>> >> >>>> Many doctors will write off the cost of care for people who cannot >> >>>> afford to >> >>>> pay, and start them off with free "samples" of meds. It's rare to >> >>>> hear >> >>>> of >> >>>> someone who is refused the help of a doctor. On the other-hand, a >> >>>> Dr. >> >>>> doesn't have to accept a patient who is abusive or has a known habit >> >>>> of >> >>>> lieing to the Dr. >> >>> >> >>> Fair one, but the system still relies on doctors treating people "out >> >>> of >> >>> the goodness of their hearts." >> >> >> >> This used to happen in the UK too before the NHS. It wasn't considered >> >> to >> >> be a very satisfactory arrangement. >> >> >> >> Graham >> >> >> > Not satisfactory to whom? >> >> The post war electorate. > > Mybe it's not realised by the American posters that the NHS wasn't so much > imposed by a government as demanded by the public ? It may be realised by most normal Americans. Some of the American posters here are just deliberately obtuse... Some of the anti-NHS here are convinced the NHS is "socialist" so the thought it was wanted in a democratic manner is totally alien to them.
From: T Wake on 16 Nov 2006 15:09 <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message news:ejhsvk$8qk_004(a)s938.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... > 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. As does the NHS. Doctors are accountable for thier actions to (if all else fails) the general medical council. All medical decisions made by the NHS are indeed accountable. > 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. Nonsense. Even governments have to make documentable decisions. Do you _really_ have such a low opinion of your great nation?
From: T Wake on 16 Nov 2006 15:10
<jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message news:ejht8f$8qk_005(a)s938.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... > 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. Not true. Not by a long shot. >>> 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. Which is why the NHS is better. Thank you. > Think about it. It > also requires a lot of experience which cannot be had > by production line dispenseion of medical services. Another tick for NHS. > A GP has to be able to know each patient and remember what > works and what doesn't work for each individual. Well, three for three so far. Go NHS. > 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. Yeah, you need to get rid of that and bring the NHS in. |