Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: Lloyd Parker on 24 Nov 2006 08:13 In article <22403$456612bb$4fe77e2$26392(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: >T Wake wrote: > >> <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message >> news:ek4e49$8qk_007(a)s1002.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... > >> I am amazed you think a backward, socialist, royalist country like the UK is >> capable of doing something as important for it's people as a nationwide >> health service, available to all, when the mighty US is not. > >As I've posted before, my experience with US healthcare and >insurance is different from BAH's. I'm at personally 99% >satisfaction. That's not to say a large number of her points >aren't valid. In particular, likening health insurance to >a Ponzi scheme has been misunderstood by most of those >arguing with BAH. If general health insurance is affordable >to most people, then so would the actual costs of healthcare >were it not for the fact that insurance companies, by the very >natgure of the beast, drive charges for medical services >upwards as well as improve the availability of services >that might, in the absence of insurance, never be made >available. > >Health insurance is a mixed bag, as most things are. What >we have here in the US isn't perfect, but then nothing is. > >Before someone pouts again about the poor not having >full services available, we do have an unfunded socialist >mandate from the federal government requiring every >hospital Emergency Room to provide sufficient servces >to all comers in imminent danger. Yes, and that's all. No maintenance medication, no preventative screening, no physical exams to catch things early, etc. Just "if you're dying, we're stablilize you and then dismiss you." Sorry, that's not good health care. Plus, since emergency room care is more expensive, and it's more expensive to treat things than prevent them, this adds to YOUR health care costs. > >Other vehicles such as medicaid are available to the >indigent. That's a no frills service, but nobody who >presents themselves to an ER is going to die in the >US for lack of timely health care. Not die, but you've got to dying to get this emergency care. > >Contrary to several unfounded opinions expressed here, >we have a working system that's not nearing a collapse. > If you're rich or have employer insurance. >The Marxist socialist protests Oh give it a break, Nazi. voiced in this thread >are a clear indication that the proponents who have >so far voiced their opinions haven't a foggiest clue >about economic theory. >
From: Lloyd Parker on 24 Nov 2006 08:22 In article <ek70pm$8qk_013(a)s989.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >In article <1164297902.254938.218460(a)l12g2000cwl.googlegroups.com>, > |||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk wrote: >> >>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. > >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. Every federal law supercedes state law. Look at the constitution sometimes.
From: Lloyd Parker on 24 Nov 2006 08:16 In article <2edcb$4566330c$4fe7352$27010(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: >Ken Smith wrote: > >> In article <4565B911.11BF2263(a)hotmail.com>, >> 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. > China and Vietnam are quite capitalistic. North Korea isn't communist as much as autocratic, more like czarist Russia than the USSR. So you've got one, Cuba.
From: Lloyd Parker on 24 Nov 2006 08:25 In article <3c972$456712b7$4fe76e5$31718(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: >T Wake wrote: > >> <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message >> news:ek6peu$8ss_004(a)s989.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... >> >>>In article <ek5979$t07$3(a)blue.rahul.net>, >>> kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote: >>> >>>>In article <ek4blc$8qk_002(a)s1002.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, >>>><jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote: >>>>[....] >>>> >>>>>>Don't you just love infinity? It so impressive! The autor seems to >>>>>>have >>>>>>confused socialism with communism. Many socialists are in favor of >>>>>>local >>>>>>control. >>>>> >>>>>Local economic control. When the politicians begin to control >>>>>the economics, the system becomes communism. >>>> >>>>You need to break open a text book or dictionary. Communism and socialism >>>>are two fairly different concepts. Communist tend to work towards large >>>>organizations and central control. Not all socialists do. > >You've redefined socialism and communism to suit your >arguments, making your points invalid. > >>>Socialism does get communistic if the administration covers a >>>large geographic and/or population density. There isn't any >>>other way to "control" renegades who don't like to be told >>>what to do all the time. > >> Socialists do not generally require the control of dissenters. Socialists >> _generally_ think more towards individual freedoms than communists. > >> Be carefull about the wide ranging assumptions you make here, if we put the >> US under the spot light some of your "signs of communism" may become >> visible. > >Once again, you've edefined socialism and communism >to suit your arguments, making your points invalid. > No, you have a typical right-wing idea of what they are. And like most right-wing ideas, they are totally wrong. >>>>Basically communists believe in "the efficiency of scale" like a religion. > >>>No. That's the sound bite. It is impossible to large and efficient >>>with a central control. > >> No, that really is a sound bite. > >Childish rebuttal with no value. > >>>There have to be too many layers of >>>managers to ensure obedience and that only the approved production >>>is done. > >> Do you mean to say the US military is very inefficient? > >US military isn't a social organization. Once again your >rebuttal is childish and invalid. The US military fits the classic mold of "socialism." > >>>Since approval has to arrive from a central point, all >>>innovation has to be squelched. > >> Incorrect assumption. > >Bland dismissive comment with no advance to the discussion. > >>>Gradually, enforcement has to resort >>>to killing to week out the independent thinkers and those who can't >>>fake compliance. > >> Again, starting with incorrect assumptions tends to lead to false >> assessment. > >Physician heal thyself. > >Wake, you're loony. > >
From: Ken Smith on 24 Nov 2006 14:10
In article <ek4cee$8qk_008(a)s1002.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote: >In article <ek37ho$2pn$2(a)blue.rahul.net>, > kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote: [...] >>The money spent on paying people to push needless paper > > >The paper is needed. No, *some* paper may be needed. If there is any that is being pushed that is in fact not needed (ie: needless), it would be the subject of my statement. I see some needless paper from my insurance company so I know for a fact there there is at least a little bit of needless paper. I extrapolate based on the idea that I'm not special and thus am not the only person seeing this needless paper to the suggestion that there is a meaningful quantity of it. > It is the physical representation of >which step the process is at. I think you missed the meaning of my post. I hope the above makes it clearer for you. > (And, no, I can't write this >one any clearer; I would appreciate a translation of it if >possible). -- -- kensmith(a)rahul.net forging knowledge |