Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: jmfbahciv on 2 Nov 2006 07:38 In article <Ht32h.25968$7I1.23695(a)newssvr27.news.prodigy.net>, <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: > ><jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message >news:eia16e$8ss_008(a)s880.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... >> In article <PDp1h.23510$e66.6564(a)newssvr13.news.prodigy.com>, >> <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: >>> >>>"MooseFET" <kensmith(a)rahul.net> wrote in message >>>news:1162219707.131372.172210(a)e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.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: >>>> [....] >>>>> >> 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. >>>> >>>> Massachusetts sets the insurance rates for autos. This includes >>>> mandated increases for speeders etc. The change will be to remove this >>>> requirement not to remove the requirement to have insurance. You will >>>> still be required to be responsible. If you drive a car you have to be >>>> prepared to pay if you cause an accident. >>> >>>Agreed. The biggest insurance problem in Massachusetts, at least while I >>>was living there, was no-fault insurance. It removes any consequences for >>>bad driving. Every state in this nation that has it, has a complete >>>nightmare on its roads, especially in the cities. If you make people >>>responsible for their bad driving, they tend not to become such bad >>>drivers. >>> >>> >>>>> 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. >>> >>>Exactly how does the cash register know how much you earn when it rings up >>>the sales tax on that gallon of milk you just bought? Me smells a red >>>herring. >> >> Go to Mass. DoR web site. Find Form 1. Look at line 33 of the >> 2005 year and its instructions. > >Yes, as I thought, it is a red herring. That is use tax due on out-of-state >purchases, calculated independent of a person's income. In no way is the >amount of tax related to a person's income. Your lies are getting you >nowhere. Did you read the instructions? In them is a precedent which can be used to collect a VAT as a percentage of your income. Just one little twitch of a rider on a bill in the state House can change that into an additional income tax. It's been done before. If you look at the form, go up a few lines and see how we are allowed to "volunteer" to pay a higher income tax rate. /BAH
From: jmfbahciv on 2 Nov 2006 07:43 In article <454952A9.54CB1E21(a)hotmail.com>, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > >unsettled wrote: > >> Eeyore wrote: >> > unsettled wrote: >> >>MooseFET wrote: >> >>>unsettled wrote: >> >> >> >>>>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. >> > >> > >> > No. >> > >> > It's less expensive the 'socialist' way. >> >> Hoodwinked. Bwahahahahahaha. >> >> Never. > >It's a simple fact. > >USA 2003 $1.7 trillion. >( $5666 per head of population ) >http://www.kaiseredu.org/topics_im.asp?imID=1&parentID=61&id=358 > >UK NHS budget ?76.4 billion. >( ? 1273 per head of population ) >http://www.dh.gov.uk/PublicationsAndStatistics/PressReleases/PressReleasesNot ices/fs/en?CONTENT_ID=4127292&chk=HDOR9C > >And of course in the USA it's only those with health insurance who get proper >treatment. Wrong. I have insurance. I have no access to treatment unless I get "permission" from the primary care physician to whom I've been assigned. If you are already ill with an untreatable disease you have no access unless the PCP is cooperative. Mine isn't and nobody will take new patients who are already ill. That is why I'm trying to point out that having insurance is not a guarantee you will get access to treatment when you need it. The only thing our politicians are trying to do is to make the insurance available to all from a single payer, the US government. This will cause a decrease in access. /BAH
From: unsettled on 2 Nov 2006 07:59 MooseFET wrote: > unsettled wrote: > [....] > > >>Here's one example. UK doesn't recognize ADD or ADHD in >>kids a treatable condition. > > > See: > http://premium.netdoktor.com/uk/adhd/treatment/psychological/article.jsp?articleIdent=uk.adhd.treatment.psychological.uk_adhd_xmlarticle_004703 In practical terms, this is just a bit like the last FSU cosntitution with flowery ideas but no follow through. In the US, check with your local schools to find out how they avoid their legal responsibilities related to ADHD. >>If you look you can find many such discrepancies. Also >>US health insurance pays for Chiropractics, > Not all US plans pay for it and see: > http://www.nhsdirect.nhs.uk/articles/article.aspx?articleId=1098 In this case, you get what you pay for. In National Health, you don't.
From: unsettled on 2 Nov 2006 08:12 Eeyore wrote: > > jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > > >>I am not talking about oil becoming uncompetitive. I am talking >>about oil suddenly becoming unavailable. That should be a >>scenario considered by all heads of state, not just the US. > > > It's not going to happen short of nuclear war. You're obviously not old enough to personally remember the fuel crisis of the early 1970's.
From: Eeyore on 2 Nov 2006 08:33
jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > >unsettled wrote: > >> Eeyore wrote: > >> > unsettled wrote: > >> >>MooseFET wrote: > >> >>>unsettled wrote: > >> >> > >> >>>>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. > >> > > >> > > >> > No. > >> > > >> > It's less expensive the 'socialist' way. > >> > >> Hoodwinked. Bwahahahahahaha. > >> > >> Never. > > > >It's a simple fact. > > > >USA 2003 $1.7 trillion. > >( $5666 per head of population ) > >http://www.kaiseredu.org/topics_im.asp?imID=1&parentID=61&id=358 > > > >UK NHS budget ?76.4 billion. > >( ? 1273 per head of population ) > >http://www.dh.gov.uk/PublicationsAndStatistics/PressReleases/PressReleasesNot > ices/fs/en?CONTENT_ID=4127292&chk=HDOR9C > > > >And of course in the USA it's only those with health insurance who get proper > >treatment. > > Wrong. I have insurance. I have no access to treatment unless > I get "permission" from the primary care physician to whom I've > been assigned. If you are already ill with an untreatable disease > you have no access unless the PCP is cooperative. Mine isn't and > nobody will take new patients who are already ill. Obviously not a problem here. > That is why I'm trying to point out that having insurance is > not a guarantee you will get access to treatment when you need it. > The only thing our politicians are trying to do is to make > the insurance available to all from a single payer, the US > government. This will cause a decrease in access. How ? Graham |