Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: jmfbahciv on 27 Nov 2006 07:34 In article <4569EF4B.4476AA3(a)hotmail.com>, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > >> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: <snip> >> >> And yet, you are talking about health care. The politicians >> >> in this don't talk about that; they talk about insurance >> >> as something everybody deserves. >> > >> >Is it actually real insurance or notional insurance ? >> >> It is what our politicians mean when they advocate national >> health _insurance_ which also means a single-payer system. > >So it may not actually be real insurance supplied by a commercial insurance >company ? Not really. Watch the how the money flows. Taxes go into government coffers. My estimation is that it will go into the general fund, as usual. After paying all overhead, disbursements go back to state administrators, who take a cut and then move it to the adminsistrators of health care providers who take a cut and then the bills are paid. This isn't insurance even though our pols are calling it that. It is a single-payer system, as your NHS is. Changes will not be driven by market pressure, but by political pressure. Changing laws can take decades. For each new treatment or new disease or new situation, a new law has to be passed rather than science issuing new research findings. /BAH
From: Eeyore on 27 Nov 2006 07:43 "Michael A. Terrell" wrote: > Phineas T Puddleduck wrote: > > > > Whilst you are basking in your little utopia, may I remind you that your > > own history has been less then whiter then white? Slavery, > > Delivered by British captains on British ships? Heck, that's business ! It wasn't just British ships either. Graham
From: T Wake on 27 Nov 2006 08:11 "unsettled" <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote in message news:a5561$456a320c$4fe4a0f$24482(a)DIALUPUSA.NET... > Ken Smith wrote: >> In article <24c3f$4569e4d0$4fe775f$22843(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, >> unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: >> >> [... crack addicts ....] >> >>>Well if the Brits want to help them so much...... >> >> >> If it cost $10 a day to keep them off drugs, it is cheaper than putting >> them in jail. The brits want to help them. This may be the more >> practical answer even though I don't see how they can keep an addict away >> from drugs. > > That's really the whole point. They can't be kept away from > drugs unless they're confined, and even then for various > reasons guards in any number of jurisdictions have been > known to sneak drugs to them. Which is why spending money to jail them is not a good option, unless the intention is to detain the offender for the rest of their life - eventually they are released and are allowed to cause problems back in polite society. Treatment is not massively effective, but it is slightly more effective than detention. If it does prove to be cheaper over the long term then the low pass rate may become a moot point as generally cost wins most arguments for spending public money. There is always the option to just shoot them, but that is pretty drastic. > There's what appears to be an insurmountable problem dealing > with addicts and addiction. Empathy and kindness is taken > as a sign of weakness to be used to advantage against anyone > extending help to them. Not always. A significant percentage of drug addicts appreciate and respond to the empathy - yes a larger percentage fall to the lure of their chemical addictions more, but not all. It is not just people with addictions to recreational drugs who have this problem though. While the effects of the addiction may well differ massively there are still lessons to be learned when it comes to weaning each type of addict off. > It would be nice to be able to do something for them that > works and actually provides rehabilitation, but that > doesn't seem to be in the cards unless some significant > advance is made in medicine. Sadly true. At the moment it is a toss up between two far from ideal options.
From: T Wake on 27 Nov 2006 08:31 <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message news:ekem0t$8qk_001(a)s966.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... > In article <4569EF4B.4476AA3(a)hotmail.com>, > Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> >> >>jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >> >>> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > <snip> > >>> >> And yet, you are talking about health care. The politicians >>> >> in this don't talk about that; they talk about insurance >>> >> as something everybody deserves. >>> > >>> >Is it actually real insurance or notional insurance ? >>> >>> It is what our politicians mean when they advocate national >>> health _insurance_ which also means a single-payer system. >> >>So it may not actually be real insurance supplied by a commercial >>insurance >>company ? > > Not really. Watch the how the money flows. Taxes go into > government coffers. My estimation is that it will go into > the general fund, as usual. After paying all overhead, > disbursements go back to state administrators, who take > a cut and then move it to the adminsistrators of health > care providers who take a cut and then the bills are paid. > > This isn't insurance even though our pols are calling it > that. It is a single-payer system, as your NHS is. Changes > will not be driven by market pressure, but by political pressure. > Changing laws can take decades. For each new treatment or new > disease or new situation, a new law has to be passed rather > than science issuing new research findings. Which means you don't actually know what the NHS is.
From: jmfbahciv on 27 Nov 2006 08:27
In article <ekco6n$g1o$2(a)blue.rahul.net>, kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote: >In article <ekc2ig$8ss_002(a)s963.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, > <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote: >>In article <ek9rql$lag$4(a)blue.rahul.net>, >> kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote: >>>In article <ek9i5l$8qk_003(a)s1007.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, >>> <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote: >>> >>>[....] >>>>It's similar to my inability to understand >>>>how royalty functioned in Europe. >>> >>>It isn't that complicated. >> >>You don't understand what I'm talking about. I can't explain it >>better. > >Ok, I guess I don't. Let me try. I was told the story of a king who was so ill he should have been in bed. However, because he was king he had to attend a function where he had to sit for hours and hours. Because he did his kingly duty instead of treating his infection, he died from the infection. I was told that the option of skipping this function would have never occurred to royalty as a choice. I don't think I can ever understand that flavor of a mindset. But Europeans have no trouble understanding it; they even expect it. > >[.....] >>I see you've become silly. Long threads can do that. :-) > >Many would argue that I started off silly. If true, it was a silliness that was productive and useful. You should silly like that all the time. /BAH |