Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: unsettled on 23 Nov 2006 13:46 T Wake wrote: > <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 "Fail properly"???? Oxymoron in the premise. Not much afield from the oxymoron writing it. > so that > companies running it can evolve massive inefficiencies and still survive - > less people pay larger premiums. Untrue. The expenses paid out for a smaller number of insured are less. Fewer insured, less service, smaller insurance co. offices and fewer employees. This is linear down to some threshold size. Anyway, while it can, it doesn't work quite like that usually. Take a look at the anticipated reduction in future size of State Farm based on hurricane losses which remain unpaid, mostly denied. Parts of the insurance industry can wax and wane without affecting the long term health of the industry overall. If State Farm folded tomorrow others would gladly step up and fill the gap. However, if you have a USG that fails for some reason, what replaces it?
From: unsettled on 23 Nov 2006 13:55 JoeBloe wrote: > On Sun, 19 Nov 2006 00:43:39 +0000, Phineas T Puddledick > <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. Having read his bile which he tries to foist off as discussion for a bit, it is obvious that he only engages those who are easy victims. Relf and TJ spring to mind. He thinks it is a face saving form or retreat on his part to plonk posters like me, never realizing just how transparent his agenda is.
From: JoeBloe on 23 Nov 2006 14:05 On Sun, 19 Nov 06 12:43:41 GMT, jmfbahciv(a)aol.com Gave us: >In article <455F5EDE.8BC853D3(a)hotmail.com>, > Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> >> >>jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >> >>> Now >>> a good TTY operator can "remember" what wasn't done and catch >>> up after the mess is dealt with. >> >>You really ought to get away from the idea of TTYs you know. >> >>Terminals have moved on somewhat. > >Just because today's computer tech now use complete systems >for data entry and access to another computer system does >not change the TTY functionality. > >/BAH In the auto industry, the saying was "Parts is parts". Here, it would be "Bit is bits". The industry may have "moved on" as the twit states, but the mentality of those that had no exposure or the wrong exposure to its roots are completely clueless, generally, as to the importance, as well as the remnant utility of what comprises "modern" computing.
From: T Wake on 23 Nov 2006 14:24 <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message news:ek4d58$8qk_002(a)s1002.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... > In article <456482EE.32ADCE27(a)hotmail.com>, > 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. > > You still have a private system in place. So the NHS > does not work to the exclusion of other methods. Well spotted - it is called patient choice. The NHS is there for everyone in the UK. Those who choose to have things like nicer carpets in their hospital room can choose to go private. In a different post you are calling the NHS a monopoly and saying it removes choice. As you can see, neither claim is true.
From: T Wake on 23 Nov 2006 14:34
"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message news:45659B11.3C9D37D1(a)hotmail.com... > > > hill(a)rowland.org wrote: > >> Winfield Hill wrote: >> > Michael A. Terrell wrote: >> >> Winfield Hill wrote: >> >>> Winfield Hill wrote: >> >>>> >> >>>> 4200 postings and still going strong. Amazing. >> >>> >> >>> Wow, now 7200 posts and still going strong. And most >> >>> of the posts were under the original subject title. This >> >>> must be some kind of a record. Certainly it's a stress >> >>> test for the Google Groups web-page display code, etc. >> >> >> >> Never have so many, said so much, about so little! ;-) >> >> >> >> I heard of one long flame war that passed 10K posts, >> >> but I never found out which newsgroup. >> > >> > We passed 9000 on the 14th, and are now within 100 posts >> > of 10,000. Keep up the good work guys, you can do it! >> >> 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. >> >> But, good job guys and gals, over 10,000 posts, and still >> going strong. And still on topic more or less. I've only >> read a smattering of the posts here and there, and there's >> a minimum of flaming SFAICS. Nice to see. > > 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. Fantastic! Fame at last :-) |