Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: unsettled on 22 Nov 2006 12:00 Lloyd Parker wrote: > In article <ek1g07$8qk_001(a)s853.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, > jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > >>In article <ejv2k6$vbq$5(a)leto.cc.emory.edu>, >> lparker(a)emory.edu (Lloyd Parker) wrote: >> >>>In article <ejuug2$8qk_001(a)s861.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, >>> jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >>> >>> >>>>>>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. >>> >>>There is no state % for Medicare. You're thinking of Medicaid. >> >>No, I'm not. Who sends the money? Not the feds. The feds >>send the money to the state who then disburses it. That is >>two political levels of bureaucracy. > > > No, that's Medicaid. Medicare is handled solely by the feds. Medicare management is contracted by the feds. In the case of Medicaid it is contracted by the Feds to contractors called states. The former is private industry following the rules imposed and supervised by a bureaucracy, the latter is a bureaucracy. Little to no difference. >>>It is a fact >>>that Medicare has a lower % of administrative costs than private insurers. >>I'm sure you believe all those so-called facts. > Google it, damn it! >>Just collecting >>the premiums is costly. > Deducted from social security checks. The fact that they took my money and held it against my will now supposedly makes another level of taking my money "more efficient"? Say Hi to Alice for me, willya?
From: Eeyore on 22 Nov 2006 12:03 unsettled wrote: > NHS has not > yet withstood the test of time. Wake me up in a few more > decades. 60 years is enough to prove the point imho. Graham
From: unsettled on 22 Nov 2006 12:02 Lloyd Parker wrote: > In article <ek1kpf$8qk_002(a)s853.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, > jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >>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> > Right-wing extremism rears its head. Nope. > The US wasn't founded on fascism either. You've just gone over the cliff with the other lemmings.
From: T Wake on 22 Nov 2006 12:26 <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message news:ejv37a$8qk_006(a)s861.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... > In article <681b1$45630847$4fe7571$7927(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, > unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: >>jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >> >>> In article <4563008C.E33FF82D(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: >>>>>> >>>>>>> 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 ? >>>> >>> >>> >>> Of course! All houses shift and creak and swell and shrink and >>> react to the seasons. >> >>Most of the European and Brit construction I've seen >>involves masonry. They have no appreciation for the >>wood frame construction that makes up the bulk of >>US housing, let alone advantages and disadvantages. > > But that doesn't explain it. They have to repoint masonry > in order to keep up maintenance. Their cracks are bigger > than mine ever will be. Who is this "they" of which you speak?
From: Jonathan Kirwan on 22 Nov 2006 13:02
On Wed, 22 Nov 2006 17:03:42 +0000, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >unsettled wrote: > >> NHS has not >> yet withstood the test of time. Wake me up in a few more >> decades. > >60 years is enough to prove the point imho. > >Graham What all this discussion shows is how any excuse is found/made, by some US folks, for not doing something that has been working pretty well for a very large number of people and for keeping a system that most people WITHIN it as practicing clinicians seem to agree is "in crisis" here. Bizarre. Jon |