Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: lucasea on 24 Nov 2006 12:00 "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message news:456658AD.8E7F3B0E(a)hotmail.com... > > > jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > >> unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: >> > >> >The US doesn't do well with infant mortality. I haven't >> >delved into why that is. >> >> It's possible that medical technology is too good. > > In what way can that explain the higher level of US infant mortality ? In the same way that, in her mind, the failings of the current US health care system are the reason we can never switch to a new, more effective system that has been proven to work well in several countries. Eric Lucas
From: Eeyore on 24 Nov 2006 12:29 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'm told > >> >> that a successful socialist economy is in Sweden. I have to study > >> >> that. > >> > > >> >It's called social democracy. > >> > >> I know. The fact that the word democracy has to be included gives > >> me a slight warning. > > > >And your fear of democracy doesn't surprise me. > > <ahem> The word democracy is included in a political party's name > for the same reason the word "science" is put into Computer Science > degree's name. Shame they don't have one for 'hands in the till' for the Republicans then ! Graham
From: Eeyore on 24 Nov 2006 12:33 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: > >> >> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > >> >> > >> >> >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. > > > >I can see that the position of the individual states may complicate things a > >bit. > >I wouldn't have thought this would be insuperable though. > > Most people, (except it seems our current Demcocrat leadership), > in this country are highly allergic to throwing away our > Constitution. To transfer states' powers to the Federal > government is unconstitutional and requires extraordinary > circumstances and legal actions to do so. I wasn't suggesting changing the constitution per se ! I'm sure each state could run its own baby-NHS quite effectively and that would then overcome your objections to size and scale too. Over here we also have regional management of our NHS as in the 4 countries, England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. This doesn't affect the patient in any significant way.. Graham
From: Eeyore on 24 Nov 2006 12:35 jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > |||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk wrote: > >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > >> 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. > > It is run under the same laws. That is a uniform economy. Each > of our states have their own laws. Very few federal laws > supercede state law. Cases before our Supreme Court are cases > where the Feds want control and the states say no. Scottish Law is different actually ! It has its own Parliament too as will Northern Ireland when the 'Loyalists' and Republicans can get their act together again. Graham
From: Eeyore on 24 Nov 2006 12:37
unsettled wrote: > jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > > Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > >>jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > >>> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > >>>>unsettled wrote: > >>>>>Ken Smith wrote: > >>>>>>Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > >>>>>> > >>>>>>>How many communist economies exist worldwide ? > >>>>>> > >>>>>>Zero if you round off to the nearest whole number. > >>>>> > >>>>>Maggot brain misspeaks again. China, Cuba, North Korea, > >>>>>and VietNam spring immediately to mind. > >>>> > >>>>You think China is communist ? > >>> > >>>Yes. They have developed their unique form of Communism. > >>>It is interesting to watch when they mix a little bit > >>>of capitalism in certain areas. > >> > >>Little bit ???? > > > > Yup. A very little bit. > > > >>It can't be communism if they encorage capitalism can it ? > > > They are not encouraging capitalism in lieu of their brand > > of communism. They are trying out pieces of it. Their > > field test site is usually the area next door to Hong Kong. > > If something works, they move it to Shanghia. I am assuming > > that the pieces that merge nicely with their political methods > > will creep throughout its economy. > > In the FSU and Warsaw Pact the common practice was for the > government to hand over businesses that were not doing > at all well to private individuals working for the > business, and allow them to operate it as a capitalist > business. > > When it did well for a while, they'd nationalize it again. Do you have any examples of this you can cite ? Oh of course you're ignoring me. Graham |