Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: T Wake on 3 Nov 2006 07:17 <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message news:eia0oe$8ss_006(a)s880.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... > 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. Do you take this to imply there is a *shortage* of the goods and services in Europe?
From: jmfbahciv on 3 Nov 2006 07:25 In article <1162305481.242566.314800(a)h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>, "MooseFET" <kensmith(a)rahul.net> wrote: > >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >[....] >> >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. I >> >> The change proposed by voters is to take the rate setting out >> of the hands of politicians. That way if you do not drive >> well, you are the one who pays the higher premiums instead of >> the ones who do drive well. > >The companies will set the rates according to what they see as their >best interests. This does not ensure that the people who drive well >get a lower rate. Gathering that information and managing the pricing >is expensive. It is far less costly just to make up rules including >zip code[1] and years driving etc and use those. Accidents are way too >random of events to base insurance on. Accidents are not random in Mass. > >Not that Mass. had increases for the things that increase risks. I >doubt that there will be any better tracking of how well people drive >than that. > >[1] Postal codes for non-US > >> > >> >> 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. >> > >> >No, this is the funding of medical care. >> >> Look again. It is funding insurance. This does not guarantee >> that you will be able to *find* a doctor nor a nurse to >> fix what you broke. > >But not being able to come up with the money guarantees that you won't >be able to find one unless you get taken as a charity case. Doctors >like most people want to be payed for their work. Insurance is the >current method we use to pay them. Insurance is why doctors are going out of business and getting forced to work for a conglomerate. I no longer know how long it takes for Mass. pay out the Medicare bills. During the Dukakis years, it was 9 months to two years. >> > You can have the cost of >> >those who choose not to get insured spread among the responsible who >> >do or you can try to make people responsible for their own actions and >> >have them cover the costs. >> >> Where is the monies for that medical tax going to end up? >> It will not be spent on real things. > >You have concluded that but I would like to see a cite on it. Do you >have any evidence that the government is less efficient at taking in >money and paying for health care with than the private sector. Yes, Medicare and Medicaid in the US. If these two programs which are single payer don't work, why would making them be the only insurance payer in the country work? For that matter, why should we allow medical insurance payouts be a federal responsibility? That is undermining our Constitution by transferring power to the federal government rather than keeping it in each State. >The >standard is not no waste. The standard is compared to the alternative. > Private health insurance companies spend about 20% on things that >aren't health care. Medicare spends about 3% on overhead. How do you figure? First reimbursements are munched by paperwork at the fed level. Then reimbursements are munched by paperwork at the state level. There is no competition. So there is all incentive to do things the most expensive way. It's a monopoly. It will make it easy to tell the electorate to do a certain something or they won't get their flu shots, or other kinds of treatment. All choice of medical care is taken completely out of the hands of the patient. <clean up> /BAH
From: T Wake on 3 Nov 2006 07:30 <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message news:eia884$8qk_011(a)s880.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... > In article <b0b87$454896c9$4fe760b$14253(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, > unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: >>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. > > I hadn't heard that one. Neither had I. It seems unusual for people to fly over 10 hours each way to go shopping. The prices there really must be rock bottom. > I suspect it would be the place to > go with everything in the same building. Strangely, we have things like that in Europe as well.
From: Eeyore on 3 Nov 2006 07:40 jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> 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 > > They don't. My advice is that they *do* ! In fact I know a chap in the USA whose wife's preferred drugs were so prohibitively expensive that they couldn't afford them and had to 'make do' with something cheaper. Maybe we have different ideas of 'expensive' ? In the UK an NHS course of drugs costs ?6.50 ( ~ $12.30 ). Graham
From: Eeyore on 3 Nov 2006 07:41
jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > You seem to think that a drug company has to stop making its > brand of drug once the patent protection expires. Of course not. Other companies can now copy it though. Check out India. Graham |