Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: Lloyd Parker on 31 Oct 2006 05:25 In article <ee2c$454690aa$4fe716b$704(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: >Lloyd Parker wrote: > >> In article <ei4s7g$8qk_001(a)s787.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, >> jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >> >>>In article <1162139745.736188.86580(a)h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>, >>> "MooseFET" <kensmith(a)rahul.net> wrote: >>> >>>>jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >>>> >>>>>In article <1161875197.735056.288140(a)m7g2000cwm.googlegroups.com>, >>>>> "MooseFET" <kensmith(a)rahul.net> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >>> >>><snip delusional expectations that Democrats never fulfilled> >>> >>> >>>>>The latest edict is forcing everybody to have >>>>>medical insurance; if you don't the rumor is that income >>>>>tax penalties will be imposed. >>>> >>>>The state pays for hospitals etc for those who can't pay. They don't >>>>want those who can't pay dieing in the streets so they have to fund >>>>their medical needs. There are some people who can afford to pay for >>>>their own health care who choose to spunge off the system. To >>>>discourage this, they are making those who can affort to have >>>>insurance, but refuse to get it, pay a little extra towards the care of >>>>those who can't afford it. It is a completely rational thing to do if >>>>you have the state paying for those who can't. >>>> >>>>If you don't do this you must either cut off the medical care to the >>>>poor or spread the cost of it evenly between the responsible and >>>>irresponsible. Neither of these options is better than the one taken. >>> >>>Massachusetts implemented this with car insurance. It is a mess >>>and people are trying to get rid of it. The fact that the Democrats >>>have implemented a similar structure for medical insurance (this >>>is NOT medical care) bodes ill for all, especially those who >>>cannot pay. The new thing that these idiots have implemented is >>>tying the payments to income taxes. They did this with sales >>>tax and nobody, absolutely nobody, has complained. Think about >>>a sales tax which is tied to your income level. I suspect, since >>>nobody bitched, these Democrats have done the same thing with >>>medical insurance. >>> >> >> >> Europe uses a centralized payment for medical care, as do Canada and Japan. >> They cover everybody and spend less. > >How long a wait is there for a hip replacement? > >How long here in the US? > Depends. Do you have insurance? What does it cover? >Canadians regularly come to the US and pay for surgery >100% out of pocket because the waiting period is too >long. Perhaps not in huge numbers, but enough to be >noticeable. > > No they don't. Most Canadians, in survey after survey, are satisfied with their health insurance.
From: Lloyd Parker on 31 Oct 2006 05:26 In article <6bc19$454692e6$4fe716b$813(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: >Lloyd Parker wrote: > >> In article <ei224n$8ss_004(a)s765.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, >> jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > >snip > >>>>What excuse is there for 1/20th of the world's population using 1/4 of the >>>>world's energy production ? > >>>You forgot to include the last datum; the goods and services produced. > >> Our GDP is about the same as Europe's, which uses a lot less energy. > >There's much more that these few items to consider. > >What is our population density. So? Do people regularly travel hundreds of miles? If so, something's wrong. >What is the geographic size >(distribution systems matter.) What are the weather patterns? >Much of continental Europe has milder weather. Hello, Alps? There're mountains all over; few large plains. Check Scandanavian weather and geography too. > >Also compare the availability of goods and services in Europe >and other places in the world to ours. > >People who question our consumption levels by comparison to >the rest of the world really need to experience the living >conditions in those other places. > >
From: Lloyd Parker on 31 Oct 2006 05:27 In article <fo6dk2hpprhg7jii1rq5un96dqad6fn398(a)4ax.com>, John Fields <jfields(a)austininstruments.com> wrote: >On Mon, 30 Oct 2006 18:04:32 -0600, unsettled ><unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: > >>Lloyd Parker wrote: >> >>> In article <ei4s7g$8qk_001(a)s787.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, >>> jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >>> >>>>In article <1162139745.736188.86580(a)h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>, >>>> "MooseFET" <kensmith(a)rahul.net> wrote: >>>> >>>>>jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>In article <1161875197.735056.288140(a)m7g2000cwm.googlegroups.com>, >>>>>> "MooseFET" <kensmith(a)rahul.net> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >>>> >>>><snip delusional expectations that Democrats never fulfilled> >>>> >>>> >>>>>>The latest edict is forcing everybody to have >>>>>>medical insurance; if you don't the rumor is that income >>>>>>tax penalties will be imposed. >>>>> >>>>>The state pays for hospitals etc for those who can't pay. They don't >>>>>want those who can't pay dieing in the streets so they have to fund >>>>>their medical needs. There are some people who can afford to pay for >>>>>their own health care who choose to spunge off the system. To >>>>>discourage this, they are making those who can affort to have >>>>>insurance, but refuse to get it, pay a little extra towards the care of >>>>>those who can't afford it. It is a completely rational thing to do if >>>>>you have the state paying for those who can't. >>>>> >>>>>If you don't do this you must either cut off the medical care to the >>>>>poor or spread the cost of it evenly between the responsible and >>>>>irresponsible. Neither of these options is better than the one taken. >>>> >>>>Massachusetts implemented this with car insurance. It is a mess >>>>and people are trying to get rid of it. The fact that the Democrats >>>>have implemented a similar structure for medical insurance (this >>>>is NOT medical care) bodes ill for all, especially those who >>>>cannot pay. The new thing that these idiots have implemented is >>>>tying the payments to income taxes. They did this with sales >>>>tax and nobody, absolutely nobody, has complained. Think about >>>>a sales tax which is tied to your income level. I suspect, since >>>>nobody bitched, these Democrats have done the same thing with >>>>medical insurance. >>>> >>> >>> >>> Europe uses a centralized payment for medical care, as do Canada and Japan. >>> They cover everybody and spend less. > >--- >And often cover a body with dirt because of the scrimping? > Higher life expectancy than in the US, lower infant mortality, to name two that belie your assertion. --- > >>How long a wait is there for a hip replacement? >> >>How long here in the US? >> >>Canadians regularly come to the US and pay for surgery >>100% out of pocket because the waiting period is too >>long. Perhaps not in huge numbers, but enough to be >>noticeable. > >--- >Canadians don't come to the US to get hip replacements, they come >here to get hip in the first place. ;) > >
From: Lloyd Parker on 31 Oct 2006 05:28 In article <4546F83D.F310F6AD(a)hotmail.com>, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > >unsettled wrote: > >> Lloyd Parker wrote: >> >> > >> > Europe uses a centralized payment for medical care, as do Canada and Japan. >> > They cover everybody and spend less. >> >> How long a wait is there for a hip replacement? >> >> How long here in the US? >> >> Canadians regularly come to the US and pay for surgery >> 100% out of pocket because the waiting period is too >> long. Perhaps not in huge numbers, but enough to be >> noticeable. > >South Africa and India are also destinations offering medical services to ppl >here who are fed up with waiting. > >Waiting lists for some operations can be a problem here. > >Graham > > Not having operations because you can't afford them is also a problem here. The best medical care in the world is useless if you can't afford it. Plus, our system of employers providing health insurance puts them at a competitive disadvantage world-wide.
From: Lloyd Parker on 31 Oct 2006 05:31
In article <ei7ftp$8ss_003(a)s868.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >In article <ei57gl$3mf$9(a)leto.cc.emory.edu>, > lparker(a)emory.edu (Lloyd Parker) wrote: >>In article <ei4s7g$8qk_001(a)s787.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, >> jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >>>In article <1162139745.736188.86580(a)h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>, >>> "MooseFET" <kensmith(a)rahul.net> wrote: >>>> >>>>jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >>>>> In article <1161875197.735056.288140(a)m7g2000cwm.googlegroups.com>, >>>>> "MooseFET" <kensmith(a)rahul.net> wrote: >>>>> > >>>>> >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >>><snip delusional expectations that Democrats never fulfilled> >>> >>> >>>>> The latest edict is forcing everybody to have >>>>> medical insurance; if you don't the rumor is that income >>>>> tax penalties will be imposed. >>>> >>>>The state pays for hospitals etc for those who can't pay. They don't >>>>want those who can't pay dieing in the streets so they have to fund >>>>their medical needs. There are some people who can afford to pay for >>>>their own health care who choose to spunge off the system. To >>>>discourage this, they are making those who can affort to have >>>>insurance, but refuse to get it, pay a little extra towards the care of >>>>those who can't afford it. It is a completely rational thing to do if >>>>you have the state paying for those who can't. >>>> >>>>If you don't do this you must either cut off the medical care to the >>>>poor or spread the cost of it evenly between the responsible and >>>>irresponsible. Neither of these options is better than the one taken. >>> >>>Massachusetts implemented this with car insurance. It is a mess >>>and people are trying to get rid of it. The fact that the Democrats >>>have implemented a similar structure for medical insurance (this >>>is NOT medical care) bodes ill for all, especially those who >>>cannot pay. The new thing that these idiots have implemented is >>>tying the payments to income taxes. They did this with sales >>>tax and nobody, absolutely nobody, has complained. Think about >>>a sales tax which is tied to your income level. I suspect, since >>>nobody bitched, these Democrats have done the same thing with >>>medical insurance. >>> >> >>Europe uses a centralized payment for medical care, as do Canada and Japan. >>They cover everybody and spend less. > >And deliver less service over a longer period of time. They do NOT. Every objective study has found the opposite. (Consumer Reports, for example, had an article about Canada a few years back.) Further, every survey in those countries finds people more satisfied than Americans are with theirs. > This >is not the way medicine works to be effective. Mess prevention >is a key element in treating disease. The only timely treatment >these systems are good at is treating people who are well. Which people will not do if they can't afford it. Meaning those without insurance or the poor. > >That's not what medical insurance is supposed to do. Medical >insurance used to supply coverage for extraordinary circumstances. >Now it does the opposite. > >> >>>Please note that there is a huge difference between medical >>>insurance and actual medical care. >>> >>> >>>> >>>>If you rely on private charity hospitals, you will find a lot of >>>>disagreeable people can't get care. Back when there was entirely >>>>private charity, there was the idea of "the deserving poor". Those who >>>>were not "deserving" didn't get charity. This may sound like a good >>>>idea until you think about what it does to public health. The poor end >>>>up acting as a breeding ground for and a resevoir of diseases. You >>>>could not of gotten rid of polio without treating everyone. >>> >>>None of this is about the poor. All of this is about absconding >>>people's monies and spending it for them. >> >>Like the Pentagon? > >You still have zero knowledge about how the US Constitution works. > "Provide for the general welfare" is in the same sentence as "common defense." I think it's you with no knowledge of what's in the constitution. You only read the parts dealing with military or (I suspect) guns. >/BAH > |