Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: unsettled on 25 Nov 2006 13:33 Ken Smith wrote: > In article <456856D8.D3AFF55F(a)hotmail.com>, > Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > >> >>jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >> >> >>> kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote: >>> >>>><jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> 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. >>> >>>You are not understanding what I'm talking about. Each piece of >>>paper was created to solve a problem. Each step and check of that >>>step was created to solve a problem. All processes, bit flows, >>>work flows, and knowledge flows change over time. Most of >>>processes that change require a piece of paper to make sure >>>the step was accomplished. Over time, the reason for some >>>these steps may disappear. However, the step and its paper >>>will never disappear until somebody vigourously weeds it out. >> >>Over here my GP now types his notes straight into a PC. No paper is needed. > > > Mine does a bit of each. He marks up printouts of my last interaction > with him. I don't think their computer system gives enough freedom to > insert notes. Mayo Clinic is internally paperless. They write notes of all sorts into the computer. Physicians don't type their own reports, the dictate them into a network file which is later typed by a typist someplace. X-rays are mostly digital as well. All, including film, are scanned in. Paper, well that's for the patients.
From: krw on 25 Nov 2006 13:33 In article <hBP9h.6352$yf7.1704(a)newssvr21.news.prodigy.net>, lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net says... > > "krw" <krw(a)att.bizzzz> wrote in message > news:MPG.1fd114f98b36d7fd989c5f(a)news.individual.net... > > In article <ek7djo$r6e$29(a)leto.cc.emory.edu>, lparker(a)emory.edu > > says... > >> In article <MPG.1fd0ee0dd9e02c81989c57(a)news.individual.net>, > >> krw <krw(a)att.bizzzz> wrote: > >> >In article <eFE9h.9693$yE6.9309(a)newssvr14.news.prodigy.com>, > >> >lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net says... > >> >> > >> >> "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. > >> > > >> >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. > >> > > >> > >> Uh, did I miss the part of the constitution where you get to declare laws > >> unconstitutional? > >> > > Theoretically this happens only when there is actually something in > > the Constitution that forbids the action of the law. > > OK, so pony up. What clause of the Constitution precludes a nationalized > health care system? Amendment X The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. Now please show me where NHS is mentioned in the Constitution. -- Keith
From: krw on 25 Nov 2006 13:35 In article <4567FF01.3954B6E4(a)hotmail.com>, rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com says... > > > krw wrote: > > > 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! > > The NHS *does not* nationalise all health care. > > Private practice continues and GPs run their own practices essentially as they like. They > simply receive a salary from the NHS. If they receive a salary from the NHS, their practices *have* been nationalized. They're no longer in control of their business. Sheesh! -- Keith
From: T Wake on 25 Nov 2006 13:37 <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message news:ek9ic7$8qk_004(a)s1007.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... > In article <456844BE.827AEA7B(a)hotmail.com>, > Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> >> >>jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >> >>> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >>> >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >>> >> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >>> >> >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >>> >> >> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >>> >> >> >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >>> >> >> > >>> >> >> >> I'm told >>> >> >> >> that a successful socialist economy is in Sweden. I have to >>> >> >> >> study >>> >> >> >> that. >>> >> >> > >>> >> >> >It's called social democracy. >>> >> >> >>> >> >> I know. The fact that the word democracy has to be included gives >>> >> >> me a slight warning. >>> >> > >>> >> >And your fear of democracy doesn't surprise me. >>> >> >>> >> <ahem> The word democracy is included in a political party's name >>> >> for the same reason the word "science" is put into Computer Science >>> >> degree's name. >>> > >>> >Shame they don't have one for 'hands in the till' for the Republicans >>> >then > ! >>> >>> What makes you think that the Republicans are the only ones who >>> take money? My state is now pure Democrat. They've had their >>> hands in everybody's pockets for decades. >> >>The Republicans do it on the grand scale. > > No, honey. YOu've been listening to Democrat rhetoric. One > of their tactics, is to get people to believe that there > is a serious class structure in the US and that the Republicans > are the "rich" who steal from the "poor". Not really what Eeyore said, is it? Shall we look at Halliburton and think about how it has got the contracts it is currently running? Do you mean to imply there was an open tender and they simply put the best bid in?
From: T Wake on 25 Nov 2006 13:39
"Ken Smith" <kensmith(a)green.rahul.net> wrote in message news:ek9tn4$lag$8(a)blue.rahul.net... > In article <456844BE.827AEA7B(a)hotmail.com>, > Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > [....] >>Heck, they even go to war so Bechtel and Halliburton can pick up >>uncontested >>contracts. > > Ben Laden Costruction is a local company they could have used instead. They probably will eventually :-( |