Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: unsettled on 1 Nov 2006 07:55 jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > In article <4546F871.E7AD0EB5(a)hotmail.com>, > Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > >> >>unsettled wrote: >> >> >>>Also compare the availability of goods and services in Europe >>>and other places in the world to ours. >> >>What !!!! >> >>Are you being funny ? > > > No, he's not. There are a lot of Europeans who come to the US > to shop. There have been many flights bringing Europeans to shop at the Mall of America in Minnesota. Straight in, shop all day, get back on the plane the same day and go back.
From: jmfbahciv on 1 Nov 2006 08:04 In article <e6fd$4547955c$49ecf26$7971(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: >Lloyd Parker wrote: >> 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. > >Excuse me, I'm not talking through my hat on this one. > >> Most Canadians, in survey after survey, are satisfied with >> their health insurance. > >Take note of the word "most." That's not 100%. Notice that he also said insurance, not treatment. > Among >those others who are not satisfied are some who >regularly come to the US for medical procedures. The ones I know about were people who had cancer. /BAH
From: jmfbahciv on 1 Nov 2006 08:10 In article <9613b$45481cc3$4fe70c0$11204(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: >MooseFET wrote: >> unsettled wrote: >> [....] >> >>>>Plus, our system of employers providing health insurance puts them at a >>>>competitive disadvantage world-wide. >>> >>>You do realize that this final sentence of yours makes no >>>sense at all. Employers who provide insurance are *not* >>>at a competitive disadvantage worldwide. >>> >>>Where there's national health insurance, which is universal >>>in any given country, where does the money come from? From >>>the unemployed, perhaps? >> >> >> It also comes from the employers but less money is required so the US >> employers who provide health insurance are placed at a disadvantage. >> In the US health care costs about 60% more than in Canada so US >> employers are at a disadvantage to that degree. >> >> There is some compensating advantage in that in Canada, you have to >> spend hugely on heating so your workers don't freeze to death on the >> shop floor. > >I really love this. You actually think you're getting >something for nothing. > >Here it is a nutshell. All government and healthcare >expenses are on the backs of working people. > >Where you have universal healthcare, that is *everyone* >is covered, the cost to the worker is larger than it is >where "the poor" have no coverage. > >Where taxes are higher, employers have to pay larger >compensation. This entire discussion is really only >about > >1) What part of the population is covered > >2) What does that cost > >3) What is the path of the money coming out > of the workers. > >You'll find that when everything is properly tallied >the costs, per covered individual, are similar >everywhere. A few words summarize this discussion: > >"There is no free lunch!" > >In case A, employer pays health insurance. Some >costs for poor and unemployed are avoided, reducing >total costs below that in case B. > >Case B, the employer and the worker pay the state >to provide health insurnce. Everyone is covered, >driving total costs higher than case A. > >The case B employer is at a disadvantage. He's >supporting healthcare for people who don't >directly provide him with any services. In case B, it is a set of politicians who need to fill the treasury coffers who decide how much people pay in. This will eventually have no relationship to the medical business. In Massachusetts, I think that "eventually" was a nanosecond before the ink dried. /BAH
From: jmfbahciv on 1 Nov 2006 08:14 In article <nYO1h.23860$e66.18020(a)newssvr13.news.prodigy.com>, <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: > >"unsettled" <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote in message >news:79e2a$45479b9c$49ecf26$8124(a)DIALUPUSA.NET... <snip> >> You obviously misunderstand the studies. > >This from the "guy" who refuses to even read the study that estimated the >number of Iraqis killed in our invasion, and dismisses the science without >even understanding the methods. What a hoot! > Unsettled, he thinks I'm you again. When he gets his head wedged, it stays wedged. /BAH
From: jmfbahciv on 1 Nov 2006 08:21
In article <hpK1h.39044$P7.19708(a)edtnps89>, "Homer J Simpson" <nobody(a)nowhere.com> wrote: > >"David Bostwick" <david.bostwick(a)chemistry.gatech.edu> wrote in message >news:ei7qis$565$1(a)news-int2.gatech.edu... >> In article <45476864.AB9F9647(a)earthlink.net>, mike.terrell(a)earthlink.net >> wrote: >>>MooseFET wrote: >>>> >>>> SInce on the average Canadians live longer than Americans (79 vs 77), >>>> we can assume that health care is getting delivered quite well up >>>> there. > >>> No, its just that the cold winters that slow everything down. > >> Actually, it's because they come to the US instead of waiting forever in >> Canada. > >So why do Americans come to Canada for medical treatment? The drugs are cheaper, a lot cheaper. But Amercians getting their drugs from Canada will be fixed. /BAH |