Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: jmfbahciv on 3 Nov 2006 08:35 In article <ZDn2h.3658$B31.603(a)newssvr27.news.prodigy.net>, <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: > ><jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message >news:eicori$8qk_013(a)s950.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... >> 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. > >From the published instructions: >"A 5% Massachusetts use tax is due on your taxable > >purchases of tangible personal property purchased > >for use in Massachusetts on which you > >did not pay Massachusetts sales or use tax." Very good. Now continue reading the instructions. > > >Nothing about income there. Pay attention to the if clause. There is paragraph that says if you don't have records, you can opt to pay your out of state purchases sales tax as a percentage of your income. This one stinks so much of rat and sneakiness. /BAH
From: jmfbahciv on 3 Nov 2006 08:37 In article <eid5hd$lgc$8(a)leto.cc.emory.edu>, lparker(a)emory.edu (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/PressReleasesN o >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. You are completely insane. I pay $2000/year for my parents to buy a supplemental medical insurance policy because Medicare denies too many payments. /BAH
From: lucasea on 3 Nov 2006 08:42 <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message news:eifbj5$8ss_004(a)s820.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... > In article <454A9769.5C386334(a)hotmail.com>, > Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> >> >>unsettled wrote: >> >>> Eeyore wrote: >>> > unsettled wrote: >>> >>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. >>> > >>> > >>> > I understand perfectly. >>> >>> If you actually uunderstand then you knew you were lying when you >>> called new drugs "just replacements for old one." >>> >>> You can't get a patent for a new widget that's simply a replacement >>> for an old one. >> >>This is *exactly* what they're doing by modifying the chemical formula >>when > making 'Drug >>B'.. Without a patented drug to treat condition X they'd suffer a loss of > income when >>Drug A's patent runs out. >> >>Drug B will of course be promoted as a 'better' version of Drug A. > > You seem to think that a drug company has to stop making its > brand of drug once the patent protection expires. He never said that--you really need to stop making up irrelevant strawmen to make your arguments. Do you understand that the price of a drug drops precipitously when it goes off-patent? Do you understand that that severely cuts into a drug company's income when that happens, particularly when it was one of their major products? Do you understand that that all happens without them stopping making anything? Eric Lucas
From: lucasea on 3 Nov 2006 08:43 <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message news:eifbnv$8ss_005(a)s820.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... > In article <GXz2h.4038$B31.1135(a)newssvr27.news.prodigy.net>, > <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: >> >>"unsettled" <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote in message >>news:4a119$454aac25$4fe762a$27898(a)DIALUPUSA.NET... >>> MooseFET wrote: >>> >>>> unsettled wrote: >>>> >>>>>MooseFET wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>unsettled wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>>Eeyore wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>[....] >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>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. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>I understand perfectly. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>If you actually uunderstand then you knew you were lying when you >>>>>>>called new drugs "just replacements for old one." >>>>>>> >>>>>>>You can't get a patent for a new widget that's simply a replacement >>>>>>>for an old one. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>Where did you get that silly idea? At least two of my patents are for >>>>>>a "widget" that replaces an older "widget". To get a patent, you >>>>>>don't >>>>>>need to prove that it is better. You only need to prove that it is >>>>>>different and works. >>>>> >>>>>You're right. It has to be different. So the new one doesn't >>>>>simply clone the action of an earlier medicine. That's the >>>>>point of this discussion. >>>> >>>> >>>> That is not correct either. The action can be identical and the >>>> chemical different and still get a patent. >>> >>> Can be does not mean it is. Chemicals are funny that way. >> >>Nice strawman...nobody ever said that *all* new drugs are just knock-offs >>of >>old ones. But a substantial number are. > > That is what generics are...knockoffs of an existing drug. That's not what we're talking about--please do try to keep up. Many new drugs are knockoffs of old drugs that have gone off-patent. Eric Lucas
From: jmfbahciv on 3 Nov 2006 08:40
In article <4549F394.CD0F8AC(a)hotmail.com>, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > >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 ? Doctors are also avoiding taking on new Medicare patients because they don't paid for the services delivered in a timely manner. I don't know how long the delay is now, but Dukakis years had a payment delay of 9 months to 2 years. That means that a pharmacist or a doctor had to wait that long before he got paid for a service he provided years before. /BAH |