Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: Lloyd Parker on 17 Nov 2006 10:01 In article <Gw87h.11225$9v5.10694(a)newssvr29.news.prodigy.net>, <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: > >"Don Bowey" <dbowey(a)comcast.net> wrote in message >news:C1824889.4D214%dbowey(a)comcast.net... >> On 11/16/06 4:48 PM, in article 455D06D3.26B3FB4D(a)hotmail.com, "Eeyore" >> <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> Don Bowey wrote: >>> >>>> <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: >>>>> "Don Bowey" <dbowey(a)comcast.net> wrote in message >>>>>> "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>> Don Bowey wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I'd rather have a new MG, but they are not importing to the US yet. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> What are these new MGs ? >>>>>> >>>>>> It's made in Japan. I don't recall the name of the company that >>>>>> bought >>>>>> the company. The car carries the MG logo, and the guy who owned it >>>>>> did not use a "type" code (like MGTJ for Type Japanese). >>>>> >>>>> I think it's called the MG F. To my knowledge, they were introduced in >>>>> the >>>>> early 90s, and the company that makes them was thinking about exporting >>>>> to >>>>> the US, but it never happened. I suspect they just didn't want to have >>>>> to >>>>> deal with some safety or pollution control law that's unique to the US. >>>>> >>>>> Eric Lucas >>>> >>>> >>>> MG F would be unusual, given that there is already a MGTF..... >>> >>> I googled it and it does indeed exist. >>> http://www.mgf.org/ >>> >>> >>>> I'm sure it is all the safety and pollution requirements too, which is >>>> fine >>>> by me. I can recall when cities like Portland (Or.) were bleak with >>>> smog >>>> from cars until the pollution laws helped fix it. >>> >>> When was this ? >>> >>> Graham >>> >> >> 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. > >Eric Lucas > > The way they met the bumper standards with those horrible black rubber bumpers didn't help either.
From: Lloyd Parker on 17 Nov 2006 10:14 In article <ejkjuf$8qk_015(a)s922.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >In article <455DAC0B.109C43C(a)hotmail.com>, > Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> >> >>jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >> >>> 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 >>> >> >> "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: >>> >> >>><jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message >>> >> >>>> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >>> >> >>> >> >>>>>So, the insurance based model is broken is it not ? >>> >> >>>> >>> >> >>>> It is now since the HMOs have become the preferred payers. >>> >> >>> >>> >> >>>An NHS would cure that. >>> >> >> >>> >> >> No, it would not. What Hillary was planning was a worse case. >>> >> > >>> >> >Two distinct sentences yet you imply an A means B relationship. >>> >> > >>> >> >An NHS _would_ solve the problem you have with HMOs. Whatever Hillary >was >>> >> >planning is not relevant. >>> >> >>> >> It is relavant because that's what the US would end up with. >>> > >>> >That's your presumption. >>> > >>> >You probably have a point in that vested interests won't want to give up >>> >their profits easily. Whilst that attitude is tolerated, little progress >is >>> indeed >>> >likely to be made. >>> > >>> >Which is why an 'American NHS' would need stong leadership to push it >>> through. >>> >>> You still do not understand how the US works. Would it be >>> possible to push your UK approach through the EU and have >>> all members accept it? >> >>It's hardly needed since the member countries have decent arrangements of >their >>own already. > >You are not answering the question. > >> >>I recognise it may not be easy to deak with the issue in >>the USA but that's not a >>reason to not even try. > >People are trying. A single payer isn't working. > >>The best place to start is by examining the idea >>seriously ! > >People have. A national single payer won't work. > >/BAH Sure it will. If it makes the free-market types happier, contract with, say, Blue Cross to be the single payer for basic insurance. If you want more, with more things covered, you can buy it from any company.
From: T Wake on 17 Nov 2006 16:30 <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message news:ejk95m$8qk_002(a)s922.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... > In article <455B25BF.2BE7B527(a)hotmail.com>, > Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> >> >>Which is why an 'American NHS' would need stong leadership to push it > >through. > > You still do not understand how the US works. And, based on some of your other posts in this thread, neither do you. > Would it be > possible to push your UK approach through the EU and have > all members accept it? You have to remember the NHS was something the electorate wanted government to provide. It was not forced upon people. Judging by some of the anti-NHS posts by Americans here, I think the real problem is that Americans are just too stubborn to know what is good for themselves and will refuse it because the Businesses which make the most profits can pay for the most advertisements. Sadly people like you, with your head in the sand and your obstinate refusal to listen to anything which disagrees with your pre-conceived viewpoint would be the main obstacle against providing a decent, available to all, nationally controlled health service. I am sure you are happy that there are people suffering, as long as you can keep the evil [insert whatever imaginary thing you are railing against at the moment here] at bay.
From: T Wake on 17 Nov 2006 16:31 <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message news:ejkjuf$8qk_015(a)s922.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... > In article <455DAC0B.109C43C(a)hotmail.com>, > Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> >> >>jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >> >>> 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 >>> >> >> "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: >>> >> >>><jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message >>> >> >>>> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >>> >> >>> >> >>>>>So, the insurance based model is broken is it not ? >>> >> >>>> >>> >> >>>> It is now since the HMOs have become the preferred payers. >>> >> >>> >>> >> >>>An NHS would cure that. >>> >> >> >>> >> >> No, it would not. What Hillary was planning was a worse case. >>> >> > >>> >> >Two distinct sentences yet you imply an A means B relationship. >>> >> > >>> >> >An NHS _would_ solve the problem you have with HMOs. Whatever >>> >> >Hillary > was >>> >> >planning is not relevant. >>> >> >>> >> It is relavant because that's what the US would end up with. >>> > >>> >That's your presumption. >>> > >>> >You probably have a point in that vested interests won't want to give >>> >up >>> >their profits easily. Whilst that attitude is tolerated, little >>> >progress > is >>> indeed >>> >likely to be made. >>> > >>> >Which is why an 'American NHS' would need stong leadership to push it >>> through. >>> >>> You still do not understand how the US works. Would it be >>> possible to push your UK approach through the EU and have >>> all members accept it? >> >>It's hardly needed since the member countries have decent arrangements of > their >>own already. > > You are not answering the question. > >> >>I recognise it may not be easy to deak with the issue in >>the USA but that's not a >>reason to not even try. > > People are trying. A single payer isn't working. > >>The best place to start is by examining the idea >>seriously ! > > People have. A national single payer won't work. No, that is not the same idea. If you were even slightly interested in learning something new, you would be willing to discard your preconceptions. You are not, so you are not.
From: T Wake on 17 Nov 2006 16:32
<lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote in message news:4vi7h.4263$yE6.2248(a)newssvr14.news.prodigy.com... > > <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. Capitalism at work :-) |