Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: Lloyd Parker on 2 Nov 2006 06:14 In article <eicp5g$8qk_014(a)s950.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >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/PressReleasesNo t >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 Wrong. The gov't as payer has no reason to deny payments, unlike a for-profit private insurance company. Note that Medicare has far less overhead expenses than any private insurance company.
From: Lloyd Parker on 2 Nov 2006 06:05 In article <6b540$4548e363$4fe7703$17646(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >> 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. > >The most recent one I met was a 70 year old farmer >who needed a hip replacement. They scheduled him >18 months later. He said heck no, that's 2 harvests >h'd have to hire people for, and at his age 18 months >with the poor quality of life, hobbling around in pain, >was unacceptable. So he came to the US. > >3/4 of the cost (100% out of pocket) was covered by >not having to hire people for 2 harvests. He thought >overall it was a very good deal. And anecdotes prove what?
From: unsettled on 2 Nov 2006 12:21 Lloyd Parker wrote: > In article <eicp5g$8qk_014(a)s950.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, > jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > >>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/PressReleasesNo > > t > >>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 > > > Wrong. The gov't as payer has no reason to deny payments, unlike a for-profit > private insurance company. Note that Medicare has far less overhead expenses > than any private insurance company. Bullshit. I am about to get onto the appeal merry-go-round with medicare about an MRI where they only approve a CT scan. I am allergic to iodine/shellfish based radiographic dye, so the alternative was prescribed by my physician.
From: lucasea on 2 Nov 2006 12:21 "Ben Newsam" <ben.newsam(a)ukonline.co.uk> wrote in message news:ts8kk2t7fubi7ev3cvhjt5cj6mj2ehcl2j(a)4ax.com... > 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!" Reminds me of the old Tom Lehrer routine about intolerant people..."and I *hate* people like that". Eric Lucas
From: unsettled on 2 Nov 2006 12:24
Lloyd Parker wrote: > 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. Depends. See medicaid. > > >>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 |