Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: Lloyd Parker on 3 Nov 2006 06:46 In article <eifh4b$8qk_008(a)s820.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >In article <5Gn2h.3659$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/PressReleases N >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. > But preventative health care saves money in the long run, so insurance companies have started paying for it. Auto insurance doesn't cover damage from low oil, just accidents, so your analogy isn't correct. >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: Lloyd Parker on 3 Nov 2006 06:47 In article <eifhap$8qk_009(a)s820.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >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 Meaning spread out over the whole population. That's how you reduce costs -- economy of scale.
From: Lloyd Parker on 3 Nov 2006 06:48 In article <eifgj0$8qk_005(a)s820.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >In article <ZDn2h.3658$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. > Sure, and for the IRS, you can estimate your sales tax deduction as a percentage of your income too. Nothing new there. >This one stinks so much of rat and sneakiness. > >/BAH
From: Eeyore on 3 Nov 2006 12:36 jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: > > >and much of that in older > >homes that can benefit from improved insulation, if the economic benefit is > >there. The rest is domestically supplied--either natural gas or already > >electric. Add to this the fact that much of the oil home heating will be > >taken up by natural gas, since it is much cheaper in most markets. And add > >to this the fact that it is in the summer, not the winter, that the electric > >grid is stretched to anywhere near its limit. > > No, it's not. Ours is stretched in the winter too. If everybody > goes to electric heating, there will black outs during the winter. Do you guys not have fireplaces any more ? Graham
From: Eeyore on 3 Nov 2006 12:38
jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > >> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > >> >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > >> > > >> >> I am not talking about oil becoming uncompetitive. I am talking > >> >> about oil suddenly becoming unavailable. That should be a > >> >> scenario considered by all heads of state, not just the US. > >> > > >> >It's not going to happen short of nuclear war. > >> > >> Sigh! That will happen unless steps are taken to prevent the > >> mess. > > > >And the best way to avoid a 'mess' is for the USA to get its nose out of > >stuff that it has no place interfering with. > > Would it have been OK with you if the US stopped containing Saddam and > his excursions north and south? What excursions ? There weren't any after Gulf War I. I'll also point out to you that it wan't just the *USA* involved in that one - nor even Gulf War II. Graham |