Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: jmfbahciv on 3 Nov 2006 08:44 In article <5Gn2h.3659$B31.3651(a)newssvr27.news.prodigy.net>, <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: > ><jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message >news:eicp5g$8qk_014(a)s950.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... >> 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 ot >> 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. > >Yes, we know, the current US system is broken--it's what we've been saying. >Please do try to focus. It is broken because insurance now pays for everything. The purpose of insuranance has been defeated. People used to take out car insurance for extraordinary expenses; this does not include paying for the oil changes. The most broken piece of the US heath insurance is the government providers. HMOs and other types of insurers are playing by those rules. > > >> 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. > >Evidence, please. I'm supposed to give evidence for things haven't happened yet in the US but have happened in other countries. /BAH
From: T Wake on 3 Nov 2006 08:49 <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message news:ei237d$8ss_011(a)s765.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... > In article <eYqdnV1nvMdH7d7YRVnysA(a)pipex.net>, > "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: >> >><jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message >>news:ehvloo$8qk_005(a)s1270.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... >>> In article <45435648.FD2B9A7(a)hotmail.com>, >>> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >>>> >>>>> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >>>>> >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >>>>> >> <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: >>>>> >> >>>>> >> >Your pompousness aside, so what? It was just a couple of >>>>> >> >buildings >>> full >>>>> >> >of people, mostly Americans. >>>>> >> >>>>> >> The primary purpose of the occupants was global trade. >>>>> > >>>>> >Not especially. It was just a catchy name for a big office block. >>>>> >>>>> Yes. That is how the mayor got the building filled up; by attracting >>>>> businesses that dealt in world trade. >>>> >>>>Largely financial institutions as far as I know. That's not exclusively >>>>about >>>>world trade. >>> >>> You overlooked the commodities and shipping businesses. >> >>Still not the centre of world trade. There are more economically important >>buildings in New York, let alone globally. > > You are exhibiting complete idiocy. It was the people, their knowledge > and the data that mattered. False reasoning. One of us is exhibiting idiocy. The other one is British.
From: jmfbahciv on 3 Nov 2006 08:48 In article <454B38B9.72B99E62(a)hotmail.com>, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > >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 ). Is that your copayment? What do they really cost? From what I've read about UK social programs a lot of real costs are hidden because a lot is subsidized. /BAH
From: lucasea on 3 Nov 2006 08:53 <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message news:eifcgg$8qk_001(a)s820.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... > > 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. What part of "provide for the general welfare" do you not understand? >>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. And yet, with all that, overhead is only about 3 %. Imagine that. > 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. And exactly how often has that happened in the countries who do have nationalized health care? > All choice of medical care is taken completely > out of the hands of the patient. How, exactly? Eric Lucas
From: MooseFET on 3 Nov 2006 08:54
unsettled wrote: > MooseFET wrote: > > > unsettled wrote: > > > >>MooseFET wrote: > >> > >>>unsettled wrote: [....] > >>>>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. This is not a question of the nature of chemistry. This is a question of patent laws. The person named Rich posted a comment that you incorrectly characterized as wrong. Patenting a new drug that is a replacement for an existing drug can and does happen. Doctors being unaware that the newer higher cost drug is no better than the existing one also happens. This is an inefficiency in the medical system that is driving up cost. > > > > > > >>In actual fact you don't even need to prove that > >> > >>>it works anymore. The US patent office no longer requires a working > >>>model or any such solid physical proof. > > > > |