Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: jmfbahciv on 4 Nov 2006 07:05 In article <zCI2h.517$Mw.97(a)newssvr11.news.prodigy.com>, <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: > ><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/PressRelease sN >> 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. You are nuts. The reason I bought them that insurance was so I didn't have to pay their medical bills. I've spent $12K and their bills over those years have been much more than that. /BAH
From: jmfbahciv on 4 Nov 2006 07:08 In article <454B8A9B.7C879864(a)hotmail.com>, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > >> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >> >> >> That is why I'm trying to point out that having insurance is >> >> not a guarantee you will get access to treatment when you need it. >> >> The only thing our politicians are trying to do is to make >> >> the insurance available to all from a single payer, the US >> >> government. This will cause a decrease in access. >> > >> >How ? >> >> Doctors are also avoiding taking on new Medicare patients because >> they don't paid for the services delivered in a timely manner. I >> don't know how long the delay is now, but Dukakis years had a >> payment delay of 9 months to 2 years. That means that a >> pharmacist or a doctor had to wait that long before he got >> paid for a service he provided years before. > >So all you're doing here is criticising the failings of your current system. Quite >so. It needs radical overhaul. To go to a single payer system implies an expansion of the Medicare system. So a national health insurer will not work well. Congress even did something sensible and passed an extraordinary insurance. The youngsteres who ran AARP caused their subscribers to get it repealed. > >It's rare here to find a doctor who *doesn't* do NHS work. Is his license tied to volunteering? /BAH
From: jmfbahciv on 4 Nov 2006 07:10 In article <eifrq5$irb$1(a)leto.cc.emory.edu>, lparker(a)emory.edu (Lloyd Parker) wrote: >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. >>>>>( $5666 per head of population ) >>>>>http://www.kaiseredu.org/topics_im.asp?imID=1&parentID=61&id=358 >>>>> >>>>>UK NHS budget ?76.4 billion. >>>>>( ? 1273 per head of population ) >>>>>http://www.dh.gov.uk/PublicationsAndStatistics/PressReleases/PressRelease s >N >>ot >>>> ices/fs/en?CONTENT_ID=4127292&chk=HDOR9C >>>>> >>>>>And of course in the USA it's only those with health insurance who get >>>>>proper >>>>>treatment. >>>> >>>> Wrong. I have insurance. I have no access to treatment unless >>>> I get "permission" from the primary care physician to whom I've >>>> been assigned. If you are already ill with an untreatable disease >>>> you have no access unless the PCP is cooperative. Mine isn't and >>>> nobody will take new patients who are already ill. >>> >>>Yes, we know, the current US system is broken--it's what we've been saying. >>>Please do try to focus. >> >>It is broken because insurance now pays for everything. The purpose >>of insuranance has been defeated. People used to take out car >>insurance for extraordinary expenses; this does not include paying >>for the oil changes. >> > >But preventative health care saves money in the long run, so insurance >companies have started paying for it. Sure. But preventative health care does not apply to the needs of the old and the dying. > >Auto insurance doesn't cover damage from low oil, just accidents, so your >analogy isn't correct. I don't know how to explain the analogy so you would understand what I'm talking about. /BAH
From: jmfbahciv on 4 Nov 2006 07:19 In article <i5I2h.499$Mw.441(a)newssvr11.news.prodigy.com>, <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: > ><jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message >news:eifeh1$8qk_004(a)s820.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... >> In article <4549E5F7.B1BC4A45(a)hotmail.com>, >> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> >>>jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >>> >>>> I listen to people and their stories rather than cite an >>>> anonymous survey put out by the government. >>> >>>What 'anonymous survey' ? >> >> The government survey. It has removed all personal experience >> out of the report. I used to keypunch these kinds of surveys >> in college. The personal part is never included. > >Sure it is. "Are you satisfied with..." is a summary of all of those >personal experiences. > > >> surveys I keypunched was a study about retirement of faculty. >> 50% were very bitter, a.k.a extremely unhappy. The prof >> doing the study never read the margins of the questionaires. >> He only did numerical analyses of the questions answered. >> His preliminary results was the retirement program the college >> had was acceptable until I mentioned that there were a lot of >> people who were very bitter. > >Yeah, so? That bitterness is a good summary of those peoples' personal >experiences. How does that invalidate the study? The conclusions from the data showed the opposite. > > >> What counts with measuring the effectiveness of any social program >> is the individual stories, not the cut and dried percentages >> of service delivery counts. > >Then you'd better get prepared to listen to hundreds of millions of them, >because one or two just won't cut it. It isn't just one or two. It is everyone I listened to plus relatives of in-laws who needed the service. The only ones who thought Canada's medical system was wonderful were those husbands who were very, very sick. /BAH
From: jmfbahciv on 4 Nov 2006 07:23
In article <I7I2h.500$Mw.369(a)newssvr11.news.prodigy.com>, <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: > ><jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message >news:eifeh1$8qk_004(a)s820.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... >> >> What counts with measuring the effectiveness of any social program >> is the individual stories, not the cut and dried percentages >> of service delivery counts. > >And yet you prefer to believe impersonal books when learning about what >Islam is all about, instead of talking to actual Muslims. What do you suggest? I'm reading about their history. Am I supposed to wait until I can talk to those who are long dead before I learn about the history of that area? Islam did not keep history records other than who studied under whom. > Your hypocrisy on >this issue suggests that you don't intrinsically prefer one or the other >(anecdotes or data), but rather in any given situation, you just pick and >choose what you believe by how well it supports your assumptions and >preconceived notions. Nice. It's an odd behaviour where the very people who suffer a mental aberrration claim that their opposites have the problem. /BAH |