Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: unsettled on 2 Nov 2006 11:47 Eeyore wrote: > > MooseFET wrote: > > >>Eeyore wrote: >> >>>jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >>> >>>> "MooseFET" <kensmith(a)rahul.net> wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>>They seem to be doing better than the US with a lot less money for >>>>>health care. >>>> >>>>Could it be the drug costs that make this difference? >>> >>>Why do so may US medical practicioners prescibe expensive drugs when cheaper >>>generics are just as good for mnay things ? >> >>Imagine that a drug company comes up with a new drug called >>"Nopainatall". They send their field people out to talk to doctors an >>sell them on the advantages of Nopainatall. They have studies and >>graphs and all sorts of useful literature that calls the drug only by >>its brand name not the chemical name. This is where doctors get a lot >>of their information today. > > > And of course some of these new drugs are just replacements for old one ( where a > patent has expired ) so a to get a new patent on the new ones and keep the prices > high. You obviously don't understand how patent applications work. >>After a rah-rah peptalk, the doctor is all fired up about the >>advantages of the "new drug" >>http://www.mindfully.org/Industry/2005/Cheerleader-Drug-Sales28nov05.htm >> >> >>>It artificially inflates costs. That's not allowed in the NHS. >> >>My insurance company provides the doctors with a list of generics that >>they suggest be substituted. My doctor (at least) puts words to the >>effect of "or generic" into the computer when setting up a new drug for >>me. As a result I have a lower co-pay on my drugs. > > > Very sensible. > > Over here NICE specifies recommended treatments on the NHS. > http://www.nice.org.uk/ > > Graham > >
From: Ben Newsam on 2 Nov 2006 11:58 On Thu, 02 Nov 2006 15:43:27 +0000, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >unsettled wrote: >> lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net wrote: >> >> > And we're going to ram that tolerance down their throats? You whine about >> > Muslims taking over the rest of the world and ramming their ideas down our >> > throats. How do you think they feel about us taking over their country and >> > ramming our ideals down their throats. Get a clue. >> >> Only the stupid hate it. > >Only *stupid ppl* hate having American values stuffed down their throats ? > >I guess that makes me stupid then ! Me too! "We'll make you free whether you want to be or not!"
From: Lloyd Parker on 2 Nov 2006 06:11 In article <eicme4$8qk_001(a)s950.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >In article <45474872.18139E02(a)hotmail.com>, > Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> >> >>jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >> >>> lparker(a)emory.edu (Lloyd Parker) wrote: >>> >>> >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. 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. >> >>Really ? I got an appointment @ 08:20 with a GP ( your MD ) for 10:50 and I >>would have gone direct to the Path Lab for a blood test ( ~ 300 yds away ) >had >>it not been a Tuesday when it opens @ 12:30. I went direct to a Pharmacist >and >>had taken my first dose of medication by 12:00 and it's feeling better >already. >> >>Not good enough ? > >That sounds like an infection and is usually a short-term treatment. >I'm thinking about stuff that is longer. For instance, if you >need an elective surgery done to fix something that is a little bit >broke and have to wait for that surgury, by the time you get >it treated the brokeness is much more serious and needs more >fixing. And if you don't have insurance here, good luck. >And this just the one thing that is broken. The side >effects of the body coping with the small breakage can be >even more problematic to fix. Back and joint problems fall >into this category. > >> >> >>> That's not what medical insurance is supposed to do. Medical >>> insurance used to supply coverage for extraordinary circumstances. >>> Now it does the opposite. >> >>Maybe in your country. > >Yes. That's what our politicians want us to endure. I've listened >to Canadian wives whose husbands had to wait for treatment. I've read objective studies. Canadians like their system. >They >were very critical of the medical systems. But they will never >say that out loud in front of their men because that would deflate >the confidence of these males in their health care. That loss can be >fatal for men. > >/BAH
From: Lloyd Parker on 2 Nov 2006 06:09 In article <619a0$45495a97$4fe7052$20314(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: >Eeyore 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/PressReleasesNoti ces/fs/en?CONTENT_ID=4127292&chk=HDOR9C >> >> And of course in the USA it's only those with health insurance who get proper >> treatment. > >The figures aren't directly comparable as you'd have us >believe. But you really need to figure that out for >yourself because even when you're led to water you >refuse to drink. > >Here's one example. UK doesn't recognize ADD or ADHD in >kids a treatable condition. And there are a lot of things American insurance won't pay for either. > >If you look you can find many such discrepancies. Also >US health insurance pays for Chiropractics, message >therapy, and other alternative therapies. Lotsa luck >getting the National Health to pay for many of those. >
From: Lloyd Parker on 2 Nov 2006 06:13
In article <eicori$8qk_013(a)s950.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >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 Heck, any legislature can do that with a bill. |