Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: jmfbahciv on 25 Nov 2006 09:46 In article <456852A0.1C71A701(a)hotmail.com>, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > >> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> > >> >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. >> >> I'm sure each state could not. > >Why not ? They would expect the Federal govnerment to fund it. > >Give a reasoned answer that isn't based on dogma and rhetoric if you can. Is the reason that the states would not pay for it based on dogma and rhetoric? > > >> However, I will find out since >> Massachusetts has made the first step of forcing everybody >> to have insurance. >> >> >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.. >> >> You are blind. > >You're blind to facts. You have demonstrated that you have no knowledge of how our Constitution works. Yet you still claim that I, who live here, do not know what our govenerments cannot do well? /BAH
From: Eeyore on 25 Nov 2006 10:15 jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > Phineas T Puddleduck <phineaspuddleduck(a)googlemail.com> wrote: > > jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > > > >> >This doesn't affect the patient in any significant way.. > >> > >> You are blind. > >> > > > >It doesn't. > > > I wish you hadn't snipped what "this" referred to. The regional NHS's. Graham
From: unsettled on 25 Nov 2006 10:21 Phineas T Puddleduck wrote: > In article <456854AD.9A3C62D5(a)hotmail.com>, > Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > >>>"Quite" - barking towards the end. There is no love for Thatcher in >>>Wales, for example. Less then for Beeching, in faact. >> >>Her idea of running the economy using 'corner shop' economics was a total >>disaster. > > > Although one could argue that the coal mining industry in Wales was > reaching the end of the line in the 70's and 80's, due to cheap EU > imports of coal - what was more galling was the fact that there were no > contingency plans set up by government. Her government simply shut up > shop in Wales without any investment in replacement/alternatives. Good Lord! You mean the cradle to grave gravy train ended? > I saw communities here turn to ghost towns nearly overnight. They're > recovering, but slowly. > > Its my firm believe that that one act alone was the major factor that > the devolution vote in Wales (particularly here in the South) went from > near unanimous opposition to it in 1979 (which I remember well) to a > grudging acceptance in 1997. > > It was the ability to decouple from a Westminster Government that often > seemed indifferent to Wales (whether it was true indifference or a focus > on the bigger picture I leave as an exercise for the reader) that pushed > it. We're persuing different health and education policies for a start. > > Even her own party in Wales has had to accept it, particularly since the > growth trend continues. The last survey I saw said 60% wanted more > powers, and around 28% for the status quo. The no vote has collapsed, > and even more telling is a rough 15-20% support for independence - Wales > (although it has always had such a movement since Llewellyn) has never > been the hotbed that Scotland has. >
From: John Fields on 25 Nov 2006 10:49 On Sat, 25 Nov 2006 12:18:58 +0000, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > >lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net wrote: > >> "unsettled" <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote in message >> > >> > Her view is that for ordinary medical care there >> > should be no insurance. There should be insurance >> > in cases where medical care becomes financially >> > catestrophic for median income people. >> > >> > This would keep routine and ordinary medical care >> > affordable to everyone. That's pretty much how things >> > were when she and I were kids. >> >> Ahh, the good-old-days argument. Well, you might be interested to know >> that, in those halcyon days, doctors didn't make more than 10X the national >> average income. Things have changed since then, and in ways that we cannot >> go back. But the, you've got yours, so why should you care if anyone else >> gets proper care? > >In the 'good old days' cancer was a death sentence. Today most forms are very >treatable with good outcomes. Same is true for many other conditions. > >Thank goodness the 'good old days' are no longer with us. --- These _are_ the good old days. -- JF
From: John Fields on 25 Nov 2006 10:55
On Sat, 25 Nov 2006 12:22:43 +0000, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > >JoeBloe wrote: > >> On Sat, 25 Nov 2006 12:06:17 -0000, "T Wake" >> <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> Gave us: >> > >> >Unsettled seems to think the US government is inherently corrupt and that it >> >is not responsive to the will of the people. Odd really, as I thought the US >> >was a democracy. >> >> The fact that you do not *know* tells a lot about just how little >> you do know about the world, much less corruption in it, or the lack >> thereof. > >Whereas you 'know' what you've been told / indoctrinated to believe. --- Would you have him believe _that_? -- JF |