Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: jmfbahciv on 17 Nov 2006 07:58 In article <455C8889.E558C69B(a)hotmail.com>, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > >> "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: >> >> >How many referrals do you think the person should be allowed? >> >> At the moment, I'd like to limit the number of referrals a _doctor_ >> can make. Dad's on his 6th or 7th referral. And the basic stuff >> hasn't been done yet. They're playing the Medicare system to its >> max. > >You need an 'NHS'. He is on the US' NHS called Medicare. Diagnosis of an ill old person now takes lots of referrals and tests and stuff. /BAH
From: jmfbahciv on 17 Nov 2006 07:59 In article <455C88F5.C5CAAC60(a)hotmail.com>, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > >> Ben Newsam <ben.newsam(a)ukonline.co.uk> wrote: >> >On Tue, 14 Nov 06 13:51:32 GMT, jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >> >> >>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? > >He just said " I don't think there's a statutory limit ". > >I don't know either. I've never heard of it causing a problem here for sure. > >Why is he so difficult to diagnose ? I don't his affliction is difficult to diagnose. /BAH
From: lucasea on 17 Nov 2006 08:05 "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message news:455D9A58.7FA6D54F(a)hotmail.com... > > > JoeBloe wrote: > >> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> Gave us: >> >lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net wrote: >> >> "Don Bowey" <dbowey(a)comcast.net> wrote in message >> >> >> >> > As I recall, the pollution controls began being enforced about 1970. >> >> > By >> >> > the end of the decade the air was much cleaner. >> >> >> >> And not coincidentally, since US sales accounted for the majority of >> >> MG >> >> sales, they went under essentially at the end of the decade of the >> >> 70s. >> > >> >Eh ? >> >> Austin-Healey, right? No, they didn't go under. > > They just stopped making them. > > >> The word for today is : >> >> * * * S P R I D G E T * * * > > Eh ? > > Actually I was talking about MG and they didn't go down until a couple of > years > ago. > > http://www.mg-rover.com/static/index.html They closed up shop in Abingon, sold off all the tools to aftermarket manufacturers, and didn't resurface until the F was introduced in 1995. For all intents and purposes, the marque went under. Not BL, but the MG "division" (if it was called such). Actually, I don't think the reincarnation is dead--I've seen reference to re-re-introducing the F in 2007. We'll see. Eric Lucas Eric Lucas
From: jmfbahciv on 17 Nov 2006 08:03 In article <455C9097.30011163(a)hotmail.com>, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > >> unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: >> >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >> >> Ben Newsam <ben.newsam(a)ukonline.co.uk> wrote: >> >>>On Sun, 12 Nov 06 12:40:15 GMT, jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >> >>>> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> >> >>>>>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. > >I find the idea of advertsising prescription drugs to the general public rather >bizarre. How would a person find out about drugs? The naming is bad enough. Trying to find out all the side effects, efficacies, etc. is very diffitult to do. The existence of the net is helping. /BAH
From: lucasea on 17 Nov 2006 08:08
<jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message news:ejk9av$8qk_003(a)s922.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... > In article <6gH6h.25564$TV3.23860(a)newssvr21.news.prodigy.com>, > <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: >> >><jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message >>news:ejf56j$8qk_003(a)s792.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... >>> In article <5hk6h.25029$TV3.4028(a)newssvr21.news.prodigy.com>, >>> <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: >>>> >>>><jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message >>>>news:ejccrn$8ss_006(a)s858.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... >>>>> In article <BN06h.5439$IR4.708(a)newssvr25.news.prodigy.net>, >>>>> <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message >>>>>>news:45586F70.5FF100EE(a)hotmail.com... >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >Finding the right thing that's profitable isn't always that easy. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> It is easy. People around here charge $50 for 15 minutes' worth >>>>>>>> of housecleaning and they get it. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> They do ? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I'm sure they wouldn't here. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>It's certainly not the norm in the US. It might be $50, (I've heard >>>>>>smaller >>>>>>number, in the $30 - $40 range) but it's not for 15 minutes >>>>>>work--typically >>>>>>it is for cleaning a whole house, which, including vacuuming, mopping, >>>>>>cleaning the loo, is probably more like an hour or two. >>>>> >>>>> I have a 4-room house. If one is healthy, it takes 15 minutes to do >>>>> the usual cleaning. >>>> >>>>Once again, we see extrapolation of barely relevant experience well >>>>beyond >>>>the bounds of extrapolability. >>>> >>>>1) I'm sure that anybody that pays $50 to have their house cleaned has >>>>more >>>>than a 4 room house. >>> >>> And you would be wrong. There is a minimum charge around here. >> >>OK, let me put it another way. Nobody who owns a 4-room house is going to >>pay $50 to get their house cleaned. > > Then you are wrong. I did. *You* did? PT Barnum was absolutely right. I suspect the person who did the cleaning for you saw your "thinking" ability, and made you for an easy mark. Eric Lucas |