Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: Eeyore on 21 Nov 2006 08:13 jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > >> kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote: > >> > <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote: > >> > > >> >> That > >> >>forces all decisions to made by bureaucrats and non-medical personnel. > >> > > >> >No, it does nothing of the kind. The only thing that an insurance company > >> >or even the NHS can decide is what to pay for. If I want to pay for > >> >something out of my own pocket, my insurance company won't stop me. In > >> >England, the NHS doesn't stop people from paying outside the system. The > >> >big difference between the insurance and the NHS in this respect is that > >> >the insurance company has to take about 20% off the top to pay for its > >> >running costs. > >> > >> What percentage do you think the government has to take? It is a much > >> larger organization and it has to soothe political feathers. The > >> politics is the number one goal. > > > >There are no political feathers to be 'soothed'. > > Oh, botheration. Are you really certain you want me > to believe that you are this blind to how politics works? > Even I know what you wrote is 100% wrong. Politicians don't get involved in the routine matters of the NHS. There are no 'kickbacks' to be made either. > >The NHS has broad support across > >all the political parties in the UK. > > > >Why do you think this so ? > > Your economy is hampered by socialism. When things get really > tough, who is going to get less service first? Tell me about this 'socialism' you say is hampering our economy. Let's have firm facts not vague allusions. Graham
From: jmfbahciv on 21 Nov 2006 08:21 In article <eju17q$9su$2(a)blue.rahul.net>, kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote: >In article <ejs81b$8qk_001(a)s952.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, > <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote: >>In article <ejr4o4$k7c$3(a)blue.rahul.net>, >> kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote: >[....] >>>Agreed but if you wish to hang onto an insurance based system rather than >>>a NHS like system, this is a completely seperate problem. >> >>I don't want either. Insurance should be only for extraordinary >>circumstances. > >The insurance companies disagree with you on this for a good reason. It >is less costly for them to cover the checkups that may find the disease >early than to pay for the cure once it is well under way. This is nice in theory. What happens is that fixing broken things ends up in a waiting line because most of the labor is assigned to do prevention. Take a look at the Canadians. That's what is happening. > > >> Instead what we have is a "insurance" that is >>expected to pay for everything. As a result, it does pay for >>everything and becomes a Ponzi scheme. > >You are once again confusing two problems. Insurance currently is not >running as a Ponzi scheme. HMOs are getting into it. > I believe this is also true of the NHS. In >both cases, the budgets are balanced. <splutter> [emoticon wipes off TTY screen] > Ponzi schemes operate by making >promices for the future that are not intended to be kept. Intention has nothing to do with. There exist "honest" Ponzi schemes where the intention is there but the service is impossible to deliver long term. You need to pay more attention to fudging balances on federal budgets. >Insurance >companies don't do this. They wish to remain in business for the long >term. Sure. And they are overwhelmed due to circumstances, the politicians pass a law that make the Federal govnerment responsibile. IOW, the taxpayers end up paying when the Ponzi balloon gets a pinprick and deflates immediately. >Systems like the NHS tend not to do this also because the >politicians know messing with it is a career ender. That is short term thinking. > > > >>> You have moved >>>from the subject of paying for services provided to the providing of >>>services. In an insurance based system, ensuring that the services are >>>provided requires that the payment from the insurance company to the >>>doctor is large enough that market forces will attract providers in. >> >>What happens is all payments get padded. > >I think you missed my point. My point was about the method by which any >providers will be attracted into the market. The insurance company and >the provider are different companies. The provider will only do work for >the ensurer if the ensurer agrees to pay enough. Wake up. The provider has to "obey" the insurance companies or the provider will never get any business. > >> Every bureaucratic >>layer adds a little bit. > >The NHS and Medicare most likely both have fewer layers than the insurance >model. You are joking here. I'm going to assume that you are joking. > >> The more layers, the more tithes the >>cost increases. > >You are assuming that the layers don't take decreasing sized fractions and >that the layers don't take less than lets say the small business case. >Take the extreme small business example of a one person operation. When >that person buys paperclips, it costs "doctor time" to buy paper clips. No, it does not. > >[...] >> This is what happens when the small business model >>is no longer used. Patients are no longer treated as individuals. > >I have dealt with small businesses that didn't treat people as >individuals. Did they stay in business? My local businesses definitely know which sides their bread is buttered. > > >[....] >>>How do you expect the services to be provided to those who can't pay for >>>them? >> >>Which services are we talking about? > >Assume a man with no insurance and TB walks into the emergency room. > >[....] >>>No, it does nothing of the kind. The only thing that an insurance company >>>or even the NHS can decide is what to pay for. If I want to pay for >>>something out of my own pocket, my insurance company won't stop me. In >>>England, the NHS doesn't stop people from paying outside the system. The >>>big difference between the insurance and the NHS in this respect is that >>>the insurance company has to take about 20% off the top to pay for its >>>running costs. >> >>What percentage do you think the government has to take? > >Medicare runs with about a 3% overhead rate. I don't believe this. That may be the Federal percentage. The state percentage also has to be included. > This is much less than an >insurance company. I am sure that part of the reason that both Canada and >the UK pay less for "health care" is because their governments require a >smaller overhead than the 20% of the US insurance companies. The 20% >alone isn't enough to explain it because they actually pay about 60% not >80% of what the US pays. They pay "less" because 1. less is provided 2. it a monopoly and can coerce medical suppliers to discount their prices. Let us take the latter. Those companies have to recoup their costs or they go out of business. At the moment, the US is paying. What will the rest of you in this world do if the US stops paying the costs of development by also limiting prices? > > >> It is a much >>larger organization and it has to soothe political feathers. The >>politics is the number one goal. > >Keeping the voters happy is the goal. Apparently all the politicians have to do is waft hot air at them. > In the insurance case it is keeping >the shareholders happy that is the goal. The NHS is a very bad system but >nearly as bad as all the other options. NHS is a social system. It will eventually deteriorate as all social systems do. > > >[....] >>>>Look at how this happened in the HMOs. These are small organizations >>>>compared to one that is a single-payer. >>> >>>In the HMO case, the insurance company is in the business to make a >>>profit. >> >>HMO? That wasn't insurance when it got started. They were non-profits. > >Actually, they were not-for-profit insurance companies. It still was a >system of spreading
From: jmfbahciv on 21 Nov 2006 08:22 In article <4562F7A0.F46F70C8(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: >> > >> >> I have >> >> replacement windows. This means that a frame and window was >> >> built inside the house's window frame. The last wind storm >> >> had two of them providing very fresh air into the house. So >> >> I expended five caulk containers on the outside and took >> >> the windows apart to the point that the gaps between the >> >> two frames were exposed. I then stuffed more of that sponge >> >> stuff around the inner frame. >> >> >> >> The traffic is not as loud as it was. >> > >> >They were incompetently fitted in that case. >> >> Perhaps. It is also possible that the original sponge stuff >> shifted. It was certainly true that the inside caulking deteriorated >> a bit. > >That still involves rubbish materials. Sigh! No, it does not. The sponge stuff didn't deteriorate. Houses shift. When shifting happens, caulk may not stay stuck to all surfaces. /BAH
From: jmfbahciv on 21 Nov 2006 08:25 In article <4562FA90.C7C6C18F(a)hotmail.com>, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > >> lparker(a)emory.edu (Lloyd Parker) wrote: >> > jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >> >> kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote: >> >>> <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote: >> >> >>>> So everybody has a piece >> >>>>of paper that says "insurance". That will not create any >> >>>>infrastructure needed to deliver the services. >> >>> >> >>>Agreed but if you wish to hang onto an insurance based system rather than >> >>>a NHS like system, this is a completely seperate problem. >> >> >> >>I don't want either. Insurance should be only for extraordinary >> >>circumstances. Instead what we have is a "insurance" that is >> >>expected to pay for everything. As a result, it does pay for >> >>everything and becomes a Ponzi scheme. >> >> >> > >> >My employer offers both -- an insurance plan with low premiums and very high >> >deductibles and copays (and so for extraordinary circumstances) and one with >> >higher premiums and lower deductibles anc copays (and thus pays for more >> >routine things). Choice is good. >> >> Choice is very good. An NHS will eliminate choice. Watch the >> politics and administrations of Massachusetts' latest brain >> fart. We'll see what methods the politico social workers use >> to force all of us to have insurance. > >An NHS doesn't elimiate choice. Choice of what anyway ? Exactly. Choice is a foreign function in your society. > >Ppl who want to be treated privately outside the NHS can choose to do so whenever >they feel the need and various types of health insurance policies are also >available for those who want the pampering or convenience of 'going private'. > >There's far *more* choice than you guys get ! You, as a taxpayer, still has to pay the NHS premiums (however those appear). You do not have the choice of not paying those premiums. /BAH
From: Eeyore on 21 Nov 2006 08:35
jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > >> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > >> >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > >> > > >> >> I have > >> >> replacement windows. This means that a frame and window was > >> >> built inside the house's window frame. The last wind storm > >> >> had two of them providing very fresh air into the house. So > >> >> I expended five caulk containers on the outside and took > >> >> the windows apart to the point that the gaps between the > >> >> two frames were exposed. I then stuffed more of that sponge > >> >> stuff around the inner frame. > >> >> > >> >> The traffic is not as loud as it was. > >> > > >> >They were incompetently fitted in that case. > >> > >> Perhaps. It is also possible that the original sponge stuff > >> shifted. It was certainly true that the inside caulking deteriorated > >> a bit. > > > >That still involves rubbish materials. > > Sigh! No, it does not. The sponge stuff didn't deteriorate. > Houses shift. When shifting happens, caulk may not stay stuck > to all surfaces. Has your house been shifting ? Graham |