Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: krw on 24 Nov 2006 22:45 In article <456752E9.D050E214(a)hotmail.com>, rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com says... > > > krw wrote: > > > rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com says... > > > krw wrote: > > > > lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net says... > > > > > "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote in message > > > > > > <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message > > > > >> > > > > > >> 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. > > > > > > > > > > It's also quite a shame that she has such a lack of understanding of the US > > > > > Constitution, to think that no national program is possible. There are > > > > > plenty of national programs in the US, and they work fine. > > > > > > > > All (not operated through the states) are unconstitutional, as > > > > well. None come close to 17% of the GNP either, though you'd > > > > likely be all for nationalizing the oil companies too. > > > > > > What would be the point of that ? > > > > It makes as much sense as nationalizing health care; none. Why > > don't you nationalize food production while you're at it? > > Who said anything about nationalisation ? What exactly do you think *NATIONALIZED* Health Care is? Dumb donkey! -- Keith
From: lucasea on 24 Nov 2006 22:47 "unsettled" <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote in message news:4b820$45671c3e$4fe76e5$31945(a)DIALUPUSA.NET... >T Wake wrote: > >> <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote in message >> news:eFE9h.9693$yE6.9309(a)newssvr14.news.prodigy.com... >> >>>"T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote in message >>>news:MtSdnXm0y5U4evjYnZ2dnUVZ8tOdnZ2d(a)pipex.net... >>> >>>><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. >>> >>>It's also quite a shame that she has such a lack of understanding of the >>>US Constitution, to think that no national program is possible. There >>>are plenty of national programs in the US, and they work fine. >> >> >> I suspected that was the case, but not knowing for sure I was waiting for >> confirmation from those more knowledgeable. > > The blind leading the blind? Maybe, but it's good to have the input of the hypocritical, too. Thank you. Eric Lucas
From: lucasea on 24 Nov 2006 22:50 "unsettled" <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote in message news:290bd$45671ec9$4fe76e5$32007(a)DIALUPUSA.NET... > > My in depth posts in this thread demonstrate that your > comment is just another in the series of lies you've > posted. If by "in depth" you mean "more clever insults", you're right. Eric Lucas
From: lucasea on 24 Nov 2006 22:53 "krw" <krw(a)att.bizzzz> wrote in message news:MPG.1fd0ee0dd9e02c81989c57(a)news.individual.net... > In article <eFE9h.9693$yE6.9309(a)newssvr14.news.prodigy.com>, > lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net says... >> > All (not operated through the states) are unconstitutional, as > well. Please state the clause that prohibits any of them. Aren't you the one who said "all that isn't explicitly forbidden, is permitted?" I guess that only works for programs you personally approve of? > None come close to 17% of the GNP either, though you'd > likely be all for nationalizing the oil companies too. Nice strawman. The oil companies haven't priced themselves to a point where 20% of the population cannot afford simple preventative services. And people don't die when they don't get oil. Eric Lucas
From: krw on 24 Nov 2006 22:54
In article <ek7n61$9d2$6(a)leto.cc.emory.edu>, lparker(a)emory.edu says... > In article <MPG.1fd116de3de5958c989c61(a)news.individual.net>, > krw <krw(a)att.bizzzz> wrote: > >In article <ek7a0l$r6e$5(a)leto.cc.emory.edu>, lparker(a)emory.edu > >says... > >> In article <c7c7a$456495bf$4fe7432$18128(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, > >> unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: > >> >Jonathan Kirwan wrote: > >> >> On Wed, 22 Nov 2006 17:03:42 +0000, 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. > >> >>> > >> >>>Graham > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> What all this discussion shows is how any excuse is found/made, by > >> >> some US folks, for not doing something that has been working pretty > >> >> well for a very large number of people and for keeping a system that > >> >> most people WITHIN it as practicing clinicians seem to agree is "in > >> >> crisis" here. > >> >> > >> >> Bizarre. > >> > > >> >Let's start with NHS not having 60 years experience. That > >> >would have given it a birthdate of 1946. > >> > > >> >Next, a goodly number of people living in the FSU and > >> >Warsaw Pact nations say that life was better for them > >> >under the old system than it is being liberated and > >> >responsible for themselves. Lemmings, all. > >> > > >> >Much, but not all, of the "crisis" is as BAH describes > >> >it. The fact that the healthcare system as it exists in > >> >the US has its share of problems is no surprise. Every > >> >business as extensive as healthcare is, that is, touching > >> >virtually *every* member of society, is bound to have some > >> >problems. > >> > > >> >The cries calling for the US to shift into a nationalized > >> >socialist healthcare system is the direct equivalent of > >> >throwing out the baby with the bathwater. > >> > > >> > >> Sigh. A single payer is NOT "socialist healthcare." Socialist insurance, > >> maybe, but I guarantee you, most people think better of the gov't than > >> insurance companies. > > > >....until they have to deal with the government. > > I'd rather do that than deal with Aetna or Blue Cross. At least I can call my > Congressman for help if I need it with the fed. gov't. Ok, but you're telling me that I have to abide by your wishes, rather than *you* finding a better insurance company. I'm fine, thanks. OTOH, you are a control freak. > > > > >> >It is my opinion that we need the AMA or some other > >> >similar organization to work towards improving what > >> >we have. In my case the healthcare system has been > >> >working well 99% of the time. > >> > >> Not if you're middle class, not if you're the working poor, not if you're > >> unemployed, not if you work for a small business which provides no > >> insurance... > > > >Should have graduated high school, eh? My son and his fiance both > >have health care, at "middle/low-class" wages. Many don't have > >insurance because they *choose* not to have it (why bother, they'll > >get cured anyway). > > Oh BS. Not this right-wing "the poor are poor because they deserve it" > idiocy. You really are cruel, uncompassionate, uncaring, and terminally > stupid! For the most part they are responsible for their own plight. Everyone in the US has at least two chances at a high school education. Many choose to play rather than study. You're right. I have *NO* compassion for them. Let them work at whatever they can find. > >> >I'm looking for an > >> >improvement on that, not the experiment run amok > >> >that's being proposed. > >> > > >> > >> It's not an experiment. We know from Europe and Canada that system works > >> better than ours -- it covers everybody AND costs less. > > > >> >We don't have a universal set of state laws in the > >> >US. Why does anyone suppose we'd be ready to > >> >undertake a massive centralized healthcare planning > >> >scheme for those aged birth to 65? It is bad enough > >> >we have one for folks over 65. > >> > >> Yeah, OK, propose doing away with Medicare and see how far you get. > > > >It would have been fine if Medicare never existed. > > I take that back; you've topped your idiocy in the same post. You really are stupid, eh? the *fact* is that I'll lose my insurance the day I turn 65. That's the way things work. Without medicare there would be no reason for this limitation. > >This part of > >the health care system *was* nationalized, which took the insurance > >these people had, away. > > > >> >It seems to be > >> >working, but the principles involved aren't anywhere > >> >close to ideal when we consider the principles on > >> >which the US is founded. > >> > > >> > >> Oh BS. The colonists banded together for all kinds of things -- schools, > >> utilities, even common grazing lands. Stuff you'd call "socialism." > > > >The Pilgrims at Plymouth rock starved because of their brand of > >socialism too. You're free to form a co-op with the dumb donkey, > >bit leave me out of it. More importantly, leave me free to be out > >of it. > > > Then leave the country. I hear Somalia doesn't have a central gov't to speak > of. I'm sure you'll be happy there where it's every man for himself. You really aren't that stupid, are you? They found that socialism didn't work, so went to a capitalist form (each had a plot rather than sharing the common bounty). The following year there was more food than they could eat, hence the "Thanksgiving feast". > > If you don't want the responsibilities of living in a society, DON'T! No, *YOU* don't want the responsibly of taking care of *yourself*. You want things to be "easy" for everyone. Sorry, but life ain't easy, nor should it be. -- Keith |