Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: Jonathan Kirwan on 22 Nov 2006 13:18 On Wed, 22 Nov 2006 18:05:52 -0000, "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: ><jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message >news:ejus5u$8ss_006(a)s861.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... >> In article <ejsl9k$9gs$12(a)leto.cc.emory.edu>, >> lparker(a)emory.edu (Lloyd Parker) 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: >>>>>In article <ejhpc1$8qk_001(a)s938.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, >>>>> <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote: >>>>>>In article <ejckm3$mf9$1(a)blue.rahul.net>, >>>>>> kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote: >>>>>>>In article <ejcg0c$8ss_016(a)s858.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, >>>>>>> <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote: >>>>>>>[.....] >>>>>>>>I see the consequences just fine. Forcing, by law, everyone >>>>>>>>to have insurance is the latest idiocy. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>If you are going to have an insurance based system and not let the >>>>>>>dead >>>>>>>bodies of those without insurance clutter the streets, you really need >>>>>>>to >>>>>>>make sure everyone has insurance. If you don't then an irresponsible >>>>>>>fraction of society can become a burden on the rest. >>>>>> >>>>>>The same problems will still exist. >>>>> >>>>>No, the irresponsible people will not longer be a burden. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> 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. > >How? > >> 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. > >Interesting concepts. Don't forget to look at Oregon, which has a medicaid waiver and provides an Oregon Health Plan that is a means-tested medical and dental plan for anyone who can meet the criteria. I expect to see it expanded under the new Democratic leadership here. Jon
From: T Wake on 22 Nov 2006 13:21 <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message news:ejv09g$8qk_004(a)s861.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... > In article <45630109.85D1D947(a)hotmail.com>, > Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> >> >>jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >> >>> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >>> > >>> >Politicians don't get involved in the everday routine matter of running > the >>> >NHS. >>> >>> Unbelievable. You aren't even aware of their decisions. >> >>On the contrary. When political decisions *do* affect the NHS, as in a >>policy >>review, they're very widely discussed. >> >>The everyday running is left to local Trusts which are not political. > > Can you describe the checks that are in place that keeps those > trusts from becoming political? Yes thanks. Can you explain why and how you think they are becoming political? As always, you make an assertion (politicians running the NHS), you get called on it and then you slide across to a slightly different tact to see if you can get in that way. Amazing. Please lay your cards on the table here. Explain to me how you think the NHS allows the day to day running of the service provided to patients be decided by politicians not doctors? As much detail as possible would be nice. If, (when) these are found to be incorrect, please show the courtesy of learning from what people have told you and adjusting your viewpoint to accommodate this new information. So far you go out of your way to maintain your viewpoint (in the face of the evidence) and find different ways of interpreting your POV.
From: unsettled on 22 Nov 2006 13:23 Jonathan Kirwan wrote: > 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. Let's start with NHS not having 60 years experience. That would have given it a birthdate of 1946. Next, a goodly number of people living in the FSU and Warsaw Pact nations say that life was better for them under the old system than it is being liberated and responsible for themselves. Lemmings, all. Much, but not all, of the "crisis" is as BAH describes it. The fact that the healthcare system as it exists in the US has its share of problems is no surprise. Every business as extensive as healthcare is, that is, touching virtually *every* member of society, is bound to have some problems. The cries calling for the US to shift into a nationalized socialist healthcare system is the direct equivalent of throwing out the baby with the bathwater. It is my opinion that we need the AMA or some other similar organization to work towards improving what we have. In my case the healthcare system has been working well 99% of the time. I'm looking for an improvement on that, not the experiment run amok that's being proposed. We don't have a universal set of state laws in the US. Why does anyone suppose we'd be ready to undertake a massive centralized healthcare planning scheme for those aged birth to 65? It is bad enough we have one for folks over 65. It seems to be working, but the principles involved aren't anywhere close to ideal when we consider the principles on which the US is founded.
From: T Wake on 22 Nov 2006 13:24 <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message news:ejusf2$8ss_008(a)s861.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... > In article <45623B15.8C623F1D(a)hotmail.com>, > 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. What you think you know is actually incorrect. >>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. Nonsense. Your thinking is hampered by dogmatic adherence to incorrect beliefs. > When things get really > tough, who is going to get less service first? The less needy. Our system prioritises by medical need and capability (triage). Your system prioritises by ability to pay. Which is "better?"
From: T Wake on 22 Nov 2006 13:27
<jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message news:ejuuvc$8qk_005(a)s861.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... > In article <4562FB7E.18D839BC(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: >>> >> 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. > > People who are running for office never promise wage increases > or more NHS services to get votes? Interesting analogy. You are trying to equate the allocation of funds to the NHS as something which the NHS then lobbies towards and doesnt actually spend on the population. Strange. Your understanding how things work is _really_ flawed. >>> >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. > > You cannot accept facts. See above for an example > of blinkers. Nope. It is an example of yours and your chronic misunderstanding. |