Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: lucasea on 3 Nov 2006 09:45 <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message news:eifgms$8qk_006(a)s820.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... > In article <eid5hd$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. Sounds like you're the one who's insane. My parents, grandparents, and all my older friends do just fine on Medicare without supplemental medical insurance. You'd be better off to put that money in a savings account, and pay the medical bills yourself. Eric Lucas
From: MooseFET on 3 Nov 2006 09:47 JoeBloe wrote: > On 2 Nov 2006 18:47:04 -0800, "MooseFET" <kensmith(a)rahul.net> Gave us: > > > > >JoeBloe wrote: > >> On 2 Nov 2006 18:23:32 -0800, "MooseFET" <kensmith(a)rahul.net> Gave us: > >> > >> >He is right. The new drug can't be the exact same chemical as the old > >> >one... > >> > >> Bullshit. Patents get RENEWED BEFORE they expire. > > > >He was correct in what he said and you were wrong when you said that he > >was incorrect. He did not say anything about renewing the patent on an > >existing drug. He wrote correctly on the subject of patents on new > >drugs. > > No, SmithTurd. Her is what you posted: ***************** n 2 Nov 2006 18:23:32 -0800, "MooseFET" <kensm...(a)rahul.net> Gave us: >He is right. The new drug can't be the exact same chemical as the old >one... Bullshit. Patents get RENEWED BEFORE they expire. ********************* It is off the topic and wrong. > > > You are just trying to change the subject because you have been > >shown to be wrong. > > It was my first post in the thread Yes, it does look to be your first post. I had misremembered who had posted the previous comments.
From: lucasea on 3 Nov 2006 09:48 <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message news:eifh4b$8qk_008(a)s820.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... > In article <5Gn2h.3659$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. How about some evidence that is has happened in other countries? Anecdotes don't count...if I tried hard, I could come up with hundreds of thousands of anecdotes of how the US system routinely fails its children and others. Against that, one farmer with a bum hip doesn't mean a hill of beans. Eric Lucas
From: MooseFET on 3 Nov 2006 09:52 jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > In article <1162480833.859040.321890(a)e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com>, > "MooseFET" <kensmith(a)rahul.net> wrote: > > > >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > >[....] > >> >Actually, yes, GDP includes things that are exported. > >> > >> One doesn't export intellectual property. It's not a thing. > > > >What a curious comment. Care to expand on it? > > I'll try. Let's try it this way....I know a piece of knowledge. > This is intellectual property. I write it down on a piece of > paper. Unless I formally put it into a corporate structure, > anybody can use it to make their widget which then gets sold. Lets try this: I know a but of something. Some company outside the US pays me a zillion dollars for that bit of knowledge and then they promptly go out of business and nothing gets made of the idea ever. That zillion dollars would still have come into the US for an export. > > IIUC, it is the selling the widget/year that gets included in > GNPs and GDPs, etc. > > Now, I had to work hard, spend money, energy and time, to develop > my piece of knowledge. Within the context of this sub-thread, > all that energy spent for me to figure out that piece of knowledge > is overhead and deemed to be "wasted" in the US. This "wastage" > is not counted against the other countries who did not have > to spend money on developing an idea but are making lots of > money manufacturing the results of that idea. > > Do you understand what I'm trying to talk about? I don't know > how write it more clearly. Yes, I understand it but you are wrong when you say that IP is not exported. > > /BAH
From: lucasea on 3 Nov 2006 09:53
"T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote in message news:z_idnctH3-C20NbYnZ2dnUVZ8q-dnZ2d(a)pipex.net... > > <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message > news:eicme4$8qk_001(a)s950.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... >> 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 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. > > I required an operation on my calf. I went to see the doctor, was sent > for a pressure study that afternoon and booked into surgery for a date > which suited me (two and a half weeks later). > > All on the NHS. > >>> >>>> 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. 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. > > Amazing set of assumptions. The extent to which her misandry drives her assumptions is alarming. Eric Lucas |