Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: T Wake on 23 Nov 2006 13:25 <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message news:ek47u9$8qk_002(a)s1002.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... > In article <456481AB.D9E20023(a)hotmail.com>, > Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> >> >>jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >> >>> lparker(a)emory.edu (Lloyd Parker) wrote: >>> > jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >>> > >>> >>>>What percentage do you think the government has to take? >>> >>> >>> >>>Medicare runs with about a 3% overhead rate. >>> >> >>> >>I don't believe this. That may be the Federal percentage. The >>> >>state percentage also has to be included. >>> > >>> >There is no state % for Medicare. You're thinking of Medicaid. >>> >>> No, I'm not. Who sends the money? Not the feds. The feds >>> send the money to the state who then disburses it. That is >>> two political levels of bureaucracy. >> >>An 'NHS' doesn't have these problems. > > Once again, I'll ask you to think about administering your > NHS to all of Europe. That is how the US has to work. > We essentially 50 countries, each has its own politics, economy > and different priority lists. It is a shame you have such a low opinion of the American people. You continue to bury your head and assume there will be too many problems to provide a service which will benefit and help your fellow countrymen and cost people less to implement. Quite sad really.
From: T Wake on 23 Nov 2006 13:31 <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote in message news:mUb9h.24805$yl4.22099(a)newssvr12.news.prodigy.com... > > "unsettled" <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote in message > news:4cb81$45647cf4$4fe77c5$17514(a)DIALUPUSA.NET... >> Every system fails eventually unless it evolves. Private >> enterprise does a much better job of evolving than massive >> governments because you can have partial failures of private >> enterprise, but when a government topples, an impromptu >> praetorian guard notwithstanding, it all falls apart. > > Well, our current system of health care based on private enterprise is > failing badly, despite all your pomping on about how private enterprise > doing a much better job of evolving. Not in this case, it didn't, and > people are dying as a result. I suspect one problem with unsettled's example here is that healthcare, even under insurance based systems, is too "important" to fail properly so that companies running it can evolve massive inefficiencies and still survive - less people pay larger premiums.
From: JoeBloe on 23 Nov 2006 13:32 On Sun, 19 Nov 2006 00:43:39 +0000, Phineas T Puddleduck <phineaspuddleduck(a)googlemail.com> Gave us: >In article <8f134$455fa861$4fe707c$14952(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, > unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: > >> Offhand it looks like the USA does better than the UK for our >> minimum wage earners who are intent on advancing out of "poverty." >> It looks like if they move out of major metroploitan areas and >> apply their proverbial nose to the stone to get ahead, they have >> a good chance of achieving what has come to be called "The great >> American dream" easily enough. > >Ah you're one of those. "My country right or wrong" > >PLONK > Being a Usenet PlonkTARD is likely worse. Announcing your filter file edits plants you squarely at the bottom of the barrel.
From: unsettled on 23 Nov 2006 13:32 T Wake wrote: > Making things up (and then accusing others of doing so) is becoming a trade > mark of /BAH and Unsettled. Why should I reinvent the wheel when it was so well done the first time? Resurrected from 2005: "[hanson's epilog] ... ahahaha... AHAHAHAHAHA... ahaha... Now, then: "Is everybody else having fun and laughs too ?" "Let's all give a hand to T. Wake. He is trying soooo hard. ahahaha.... ahahahaha....AHAHAHA... ahahaha... "PS: Rumors have it that T.Wake is a low paid apprentice for a struggling startup "me-too" tabloid and he is honing his feeble skills as a critique in these NG's... ahahaha.... Hey, TWay, I didn't mean to crank you. Really!... How about that?..... ahahahaha... or does that crank you too? ahahaha...AHAHAHA... " <http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/f45333c56ece0140?dmode=source&hl=en>
From: unsettled on 23 Nov 2006 13:37
T Wake wrote: > <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message > news:ek47qf$8qk_001(a)s1002.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... >>Now think about all the money spent on payroll deductions that >>prop up the measly amount deducted from the Social Security >>checks. None of these costs are included in your 3% figure >>because it is the employers who pay it. > How do you know not of these costs are included in the 3% figure? Because they're reported elsewhere. > How is > this a significant impact on the administration costs when a private > insurance run system still has to do it.? Idiot. You understand nothing about accounting or politics or propaganda (and/or urban legends) that you didn't personally invent. |