Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: jmfbahciv on 27 Nov 2006 09:16 In article <456AF174.B3062C0E(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: >> >> >> >> 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. > >" For each new treatment or new >disease or new situation, a new law has to be passed " Yes. That is, generally, how things work over here. > >Pull the other one.it's got bells on it. We do not have your equivalent of your Civil Service system. The decisions that group makes in your political system is done by law in ours. Your Prime Minister and Cabinet can change a lot of details without the equivalent of our Congressional approval. In your country its the House of Lords (I think). I'm still trying to learn how you run your country. /BAH
From: Eeyore on 27 Nov 2006 09:35 unsettled wrote: > Wonder what sort of $ would result from "a cure" if there > is a single one. Antabuse hasn't seemed to get too good > a play. That's because antabuse doesn't address the addiction. It's just another 'punishment'. I heard that Spike Milkligan used to take his with a glass of vodka. Graham
From: Eeyore on 27 Nov 2006 09:39 jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > > >> 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. > > > >" For each new treatment or new > >disease or new situation, a new law has to be passed " > > Yes. That is, generally, how things work over here. Not here. The NHS has its own guidelines. They aren't subject to politicial control > >Pull the other one.it's got bells on it. > > We do not have your equivalent of your Civil Service system. > The decisions that group makes in your political system is > done by law in ours. Your Prime Minister and Cabinet > can change a lot of details without the equivalent of our > Congressional approval. In your country its the House of > Lords (I think). I'm still trying to learn how you run > your country. No. The House of Lords is essentially a 'reviewing' body. It acts as a break on excessive legislation. It is true that some 'laws' can be passed with reference to the House though. These are called Statutory Instruments and can be enacted by Ministerial power. Graham
From: Phineas T Puddleduck on 27 Nov 2006 09:56 In article <ekep3f$8qk_013(a)s966.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > 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. Are you seriously this stupid to take a fictional story and ascribe from it a negative trait that extends over a contiinent? Really, please take your time over answering this. -- Just \int_0^\infty du it! -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
From: Phineas T Puddleduck on 27 Nov 2006 09:57
In article <ekepbd$8qk_014(a)s966.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > Are they still on the dole? And do you not export oil yet? > > Thatcher has been out for two decades. Do you really want > me to believe that it's her fault that your citizry still > can't be self-sufficient without government handouts? Yep - you are this stupid. -- Just \int_0^\infty du it! -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com |