Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: jmfbahciv on 23 Nov 2006 10:09 In article <3n49m217v6elta45n7or12e7o8g9q7764b(a)4ax.com>, Jonathan Kirwan <jkirwan(a)easystreet.com> wrote: >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. Have they the brass balls to invoke a penalty on your income tax form if you don't "volunteer" and sign up for those programs? I have yet to hear anybody help about this step to a dicatorship; it is very worrisome. /BAH
From: jmfbahciv on 23 Nov 2006 10:16 In article <1164292745.170820.289450(a)j72g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, hill(a)rowland.org wrote: >Eeyore wrote: >> Winfield Hill wrote: >>> Google Groups is having a little trouble with this long thread. >>> The message-heading list said there were 9999 posts, so >>> I hoped to make the 10,000th post, but upon loading all the >>> article references in the left sidebar, it showed more than >>> 10,050 posts, so I missed the opportunity. >> >> Yes, we've found a flaw with google groups. >> >> The summary page seems incapable of displaying any number > 10,000 ! >> The honour of the 10,000th post goes to T Wake btw. > > Well, Graham, actually it has you as # 10,000 right now. > But the number is volatile and it'll change as soon as > someone posts higher up in the list, pushing the rest down. Try this test of their software: See if you can access and read the first couple of posts in this thread. /BAH
From: Eeyore on 23 Nov 2006 10:22 hill(a)rowland.org wrote: > Eeyore wrote: > > Winfield Hill wrote: > >> Google Groups is having a little trouble with this long thread. > >> The message-heading list said there were 9999 posts, so > >> I hoped to make the 10,000th post, but upon loading all the > >> article references in the left sidebar, it showed more than > >> 10,050 posts, so I missed the opportunity. > > > > Yes, we've found a flaw with google groups. > > > > The summary page seems incapable of displaying any number > 10,000 ! > > The honour of the 10,000th post goes to T Wake btw. > > Well, Graham, actually it has you as # 10,000 right now. > But the number is volatile and it'll change as soon as > someone posts higher up in the list, pushing the rest down. I see what you mean. Joe Bloe's at number 10,000 now. The summary page has 'frozen' though at 10,000 an that lists T Wake as the poster. It did so last night too when the thread originally reached that number so that position doesn't seem to vary. Graham
From: jmfbahciv on 23 Nov 2006 10:18 In article <4565B7A9.231E77FC(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: >> >> > >> >> >> Have you considered that people should plan ahead? >> >> > >> >> >Have you considered that we don't live in an ideal world ? >> >> >> >> I know it isn't ideal. Because of this fact, no national >> >> social program will deliver satisfactory service efficiently. >> >> It will deliver the minimum and that's all. >> > >> >You just keep saying this with no factual basis. >> > >> >The truth is that the NHS ( a national social prgramme ) does deliver a good >> >service very effectively. I'd call it better than a minimum too but it is for >> >sure essentially 'no frills'. >> >> It services a small geographic area with a uniform economy, a >> uniform governement, > >Actually, in Scotland the NHS is administered by the Scottish parliament. > > >> and a uniform political base of assumptions. > >It's true that both the political right and left agree on its value ! > > >> >In comparison the US system fails to deliver as much at a far greater cost. >> >> You are comparing a mom and pop store with a conglomerate. > >In population terms the USA's only 5 times bigger. Similar schemes to the NHS >exist all over Europe with a far greater population than the USA. But dispersed over the equivalent of 50 countries, each with its own sets of rules. In your country everybody agrees to one set. This is not true in the US. The one-rule set is very limited in power. /BAH
From: |||newspam||| on 23 Nov 2006 11:05
jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > In article <45659BD4.C4D74C51(a)hotmail.com>, > Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > > > >> I know it isn't ideal. Because of this fact, no national > >> social program will deliver satisfactory service efficiently. > >> It will deliver the minimum and that's all. > > > >You just keep saying this with no factual basis. > > > >The truth is that the NHS ( a national social prgramme ) does deliver a good > >service very effectively. I'd call it better than a minimum too but it is for > >sure essentially 'no frills'. > > It services a small geographic area with a uniform economy, a > uniform governement, and a uniform political base of assumptions. It covers England, Scotland and Wales with slightly different rules in each place according to local taste (devolution for Scotland saw to that). I take it you have never heard of the North South divide then? The UK is not a uniform economy by any means. > >In comparison the US system fails to deliver as much at a far greater cost. > > You are comparing a mom and pop store with a conglomerate. You have a very peculiar definition of a mom & pop store. But when did you ever let small details like facts get in the way of your warped and twisted world view. The UK NHS in its entireity is generally reckonned to be the fifth largest employer on the planet (1.3M employees in 2005) just below Walmart & US DOD in the rankings. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Health_Service#Staff A comprehensive US version would have to be bigger but not by all that much - perhaps 5x at most. BTW The UK health system is an efficient conglomerate with economies of scale. If you are happy with a US system where the uninsurable chronically ill have to beg for expensive drugs off the manufacturers that is your problem. And it will only get worse as more powerful genetic tests allow insurers to screen out high risk individuals before they get sick. It seems to be a prevalent attitude in the USA that only the very rich who can pay for everything privately deserve to get a decent education or health care. Most odd. Regards, Martin Brown |