Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: jmfbahciv on 22 Nov 2006 07:42 In article <45638C91.511F38F8(a)earthlink.net>, "Michael A. Terrell" <mike.terrell(a)earthlink.net> wrote: >krw wrote: > >> >> Why? McDonalds pays real money. They offer real benefits. Why >> wouldn't kids learn how to handle money by being employed? It's >> certainly better than learning to live off the government! > > > A kid I know has just finished a year working at a Wendy's >restaurant. He has bought a used pickup truck, and a used motorcycle. He >helps support his disabled mother, and he only graduated from high >school, earlier this year. He has matured a lot in the past year, >something that the demented donkey really should try. > > The first couple months he was wasting his money, Everybody goes through this stage, I think. > but that changed >fairly fast. His talk of a fancy stereo system, and other useless toys >is gone, and he is trying to save some money for his future. Good for him. I hope he finds something that he would pay his employer so he can do the work. /BAH
From: jmfbahciv on 22 Nov 2006 08:53 In article <ejv4gs$1lb$2(a)blue.rahul.net>, kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote: >In article <7c99c$45630644$4fe7571$7869(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, >unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: >[....] >>Dealing with medical billing has become its own >>separate discipline. The physician and dentist is >>forced to hire a non-medical billing specialist >>even for a one man office. > >Yes, this is another inefficience of the current system. At least they >should standardize the forms and make much of it electronic. There is >very little reason for the billing information to travel on paper any >more. Well, there is a good reason. Accountability. If the patient isn't copied, only the computers know who is getting charged for what. >[....] >>> I did not think that they had the classification of insurance. I though >>> the whole point of creating this kind of business was to avoid >>> the constraints of insurance laws. >> >>Kennedy - March 3, 1978: >> >> "As the author of the first HMO bill ever to pass the Senate, I find >>this spreading support for HMOs truly gratifying. Just a few years ago, >>proponents of health maintenance organizations faced bitter opposition >>from organized medicine. And just a few years ago, congressional >>advocates of HMOs faced an administration which was long on HMO >>rhetoric, but very short on action." >> >>Kennedy - May 15, 2001 >> >> "It is time to end the abuses of managed care that victimize thousands >>of patients each day. It is time for doctors and nurses and patients to >>make medical decisions again, not insurance company accountants. The >>American people deserve prompt action, and we intend to see that they >>get it." >> >>http://www.forhealthfreedom.org/Publications/Choice/ThenAndNow.html >> >>Partial list of abuses listed at the end.[1] > >BAH doesn't so WWW stuff so I've left your quote at the end in place. > > >The fact that the US's system of payment for healthcare doesn't work very >well is well documented. Tinkering around the edges won't fix it. What makes you think that these problem will be fixed with an NHS? It will not. If anything, the problems will become worse. I don't why this happens but it does with legislation; it seems to always happen when the legislation is passed for the "good of the people". This sound bite always gets me suspicious about what is really getting passed and I try to find out how much it will cost me. > >[...] >>> This is what is very, very odd in this thread. This underlying >>> belief system is creeping to the point of insanity. That's >>> why I keep thinking lemmings and wonder if it's biochemical. >> >>Fanatical religious. They buy into an entire system rather >>than to analyze each individual component. This allows >>insane components to take a ride with the rest, some of >>which might actually make some sense at the end of the day. > >What the folks on your side are seeing is the same as what the folks on >the other side also see. Your side says "socialism is bad" and then "NHS >is socialism" and then won't look at how it operates to see why it manages >to do better than the US's system. You reject the whole adn accuse those >others of accepting the whole. I know why it manages to do "better". It is local. You do not have a large geographic distribution to deal with. It is also accepted by the populace because your basic tenets are based on a socialism. The US is not. <snip - cleanup> /BAH
From: Ken Smith on 22 Nov 2006 09:23 In article <ek1kpf$8qk_002(a)s853.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote: >In article <ejv4gs$1lb$2(a)blue.rahul.net>, > kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote: >>In article <7c99c$45630644$4fe7571$7869(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, >>unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: >>[....] >>>Dealing with medical billing has become its own >>>separate discipline. The physician and dentist is >>>forced to hire a non-medical billing specialist >>>even for a one man office. >> >>Yes, this is another inefficience of the current system. At least they >>should standardize the forms and make much of it electronic. There is >>very little reason for the billing information to travel on paper any >>more. > >Well, there is a good reason. Accountability. If the patient >isn't copied, only the computers know who is getting charged for >what. Many people have e-mail these days. There is no reason that the computer can't send an email. [...] >>The fact that the US's system of payment for healthcare doesn't work very >>well is well documented. Tinkering around the edges won't fix it. [....] >What makes you think that these problem will be fixed with an NHS? Both Canada and the UK do better with the systems they have. The experiment is done. The results have been tabulated. >It will not. If anything, the problems will become worse. I don't >why this happens but it does with legislation; it seems to always >happen when the legislation is passed for the "good of the people". >This sound bite always gets me suspicious about what is really >getting passed and I try to find out how much it will cost me. You have a very low opinion of democracy. Are you suggesting that the US is just too corrupt for the NHS system to work? >>What the folks on your side are seeing is the same as what the folks on >>the other side also see. Your side says "socialism is bad" and then "NHS >>is socialism" and then won't look at how it operates to see why it manages >>to do better than the US's system. You reject the whole adn accuse those >>others of accepting the whole. > >I know why it manages to do "better". It is local. You do not >have a large geographic distribution to deal with. Canada is bigger than the US and their system works better than the US's too. "Local" isn't the answer. > It is also >accepted by the populace because your basic tenets are based on >a socialism. The US is not. BTW: I am not from the UK not am I there right now so I really can't speak to what the tenets are for them. I believe that Canada and the UK accept the NHS system because they know it works. -- -- kensmith(a)rahul.net forging knowledge
From: unsettled on 22 Nov 2006 10:09 jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > In article <ejv4gs$1lb$2(a)blue.rahul.net>, > kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote: > >>In article <7c99c$45630644$4fe7571$7869(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, >>unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: >>>http://www.forhealthfreedom.org/Publications/Choice/ThenAndNow.html >>>Partial list of abuses listed at the end.[1] >>BAH doesn't so WWW stuff so I've left your quote at the end in place. >>The fact that the US's system of payment for healthcare doesn't work very >>well is well documented. Tinkering around the edges won't fix it. > What makes you think that these problem will be fixed with an NHS? > It will not. If anything, the problems will become worse. I don't > why this happens but it does with legislation; it seems to always > happen when the legislation is passed for the "good of the people". > This sound bite always gets me suspicious about what is really > getting passed and I try to find out how much it will cost me. Any auditor worth their salt will tell you that a politician like Kennedy will jump on healthcare problems when private business is at fault, but will be steadfastly silent when the same problems creep up in government operated healthcare.
From: unsettled on 22 Nov 2006 10:23
Ken Smith wrote: > In article <ek1kpf$8qk_002(a)s853.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, > <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote: [.....] >> It is also >>accepted by the populace because your basic tenets are based on >>a socialism. The US is not. > BTW: I am not from the UK not am I there right now so I really can't > speak to what the tenets are for them. > I believe that Canada and the UK accept the NHS system because they know > it works. If we hadn't gotten past FDR as we have, we'd have some sort of an NHS as well. What's forgotten is that in most instances the US is the leader, not the follower. Society, governments, and politics, are all long term experiments. How long did it take for the FSU with its "wonderful new" system of politics to fail? NHS has not yet withstood the test of time. Wake me up in a few more decades. I've seen past usenet references to Hayek's book, "Road to Serfdom" with an abbreviated version available on the internet at: http://jim.com/hayek.htm excerpt follows: "Many socialists have the tragic illusion that by depriving private individuals of the power they possess in an individualist system, and transferring this power to society, they thereby extinguish power. What they overlook is that, by concentrating power so that it can be used in the service of a single plan, it is not merely transformed but infinitely heightened. By uniting in the hands of some single body power formerly exercised independently by many, an amount of power is created infinitely greater than any that existed before, so much more far-reaching as almost to be different in kind. It is entirely fallacious to argue that the great power exercised by a central planning board would be "no greater than the power collectively exercised by private boards of directors." There is, in a competitive society, nobody who can exercise even a fraction of the power which a socialist planning board would possess. To decentralize power is to reduce the absolute amount of power, and the competitive system is the only system designed to minimize the power exercised by man over man. Who can seriously doubt that the power which a millionaire, who may be my employer, has over me is very much less than that which the smallest bureaucrat possesses who wields the coercive power of the state and on whose discretion it depends how I am allowed to live and work?" |