Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: T Wake on 4 Nov 2006 12:02 <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message news:eihvvg$8ps_003(a)s792.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... > In article <eifrq5$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. I am not sure what your position on this is. You defend the US healthcare system yet highlight how it is failing. >>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. I suspect you are trying to say that people are insured for the big problems but expected to pay for routine care and maintenance. Health care is still not the same.
From: unsettled on 4 Nov 2006 12:02 Jamie wrote: > Eeyore wrote: > >> >> unsettled wrote: >> >> >>> Your opinion is worthless. >> >> >> >> Yeah.... right..... Ok ! >> >> > you finally agree with something! You know they're going to call you me soon.
From: unsettled on 4 Nov 2006 12:08 Eeyore wrote: > > unsettled wrote: > > >>T Wake distorted: >> >>><jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message >>> >>>>In article <454C1E11.8C3514AC(a)hotmail.com>, >>>> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> >>>>>I'm simply pointing out the factual reasons for the 1973 oil embargo. >>>>> >>>>>Do you want to rewrite history ? >>>> >>>>Now, think about an Islam decision that uses a similar tactic >>>>which involves a shutdown of all oil shipments. >>> >>> >>>Ok. I have thought about possible Islamic decisions which would use similar >>>tactics and dismissed them all as either idiotic or ineffective. First >>>though, I though about which "Islam" could make such a decision. I have also >>>though about the fact that there are non-Islamic countries which produce >>>oil. I am sure most OPEC nations would baulk at bankrupting themselves just >>>to reduce the oil they export to the west. >>> >>>Unsettled is talking nonsense and creating more strawmen than usual here. >>>Siding with him on this does your argument no good. >> >>Here's my contribution to this discussion: >> >> >>>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yom_Kippur_War >> >>>>So the arabs start another war, they lose, *again*, then >> >>>>in a fit of pique punish the US, and here some 30+ years >> >>>>later you're supporting the Arab posture? >> >>Where's the straw man? Where's the nonsense? >> >>Oh, YOUR nonsense? Oh, YOUR strawman! > > > Islam had nothing directly to do with the 1973 oil embargo. The embargo wasn't an > Islamic edict. It was a response from Arab nations. The wars were Islamic against Jews. Islam lost both. The embargo was Islamic. Arab = Muslim No one seems to be able to separate them. No one wants to. No one dares try. Islam today is a superset of Arab. > See.......... > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_world > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muslim_world > > Not the same thing at all. You can't discover the difference between BAH and myself, so how would you attack as slightly more complex idea? Not well at all, obviously. > Graham > >
From: unsettled on 4 Nov 2006 12:09 Eeyore wrote: > > Jamie wrote: > > >>Eeyore wrote: >> >>>Spehro Pefhany wrote: >>> >>> >>>>if you're in the market for a $5K+ >>>>watch, there are only a few places worldwide that are comparable >>> >>>Why would anyone spend that much on a watch ? I can't figure it. Aside from >>>bragging rights of course ! >>> >>>Graham >>> >> >> you can't figure it out? why does that >>not surprise me? > > > It's certainly nothing to do with timekeeping. > > Graham > A real timepiece costs a lot more than that.
From: unsettled on 4 Nov 2006 12:10
Eeyore wrote: > > unsettled wrote: > > >>Jamie wrote: >> >>>Eeyore wrote: >>> >>>>Spehro Pefhany wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>>if you're in the market for a $5K+ >>>>>watch, there are only a few places worldwide that are comparable >>>> >>>> >>>>Why would anyone spend that much on a watch ? I can't figure it. Aside >>>>from >>>>bragging rights of course ! >>>> >>>>Graham >>>> >>> >>> you can't figure it out? why does that >>>not surprise me? >> >>Easy things are difficult for our camel jockey. > > > So do tell why a $5k watch makes sense. > > Graham What does "make sense" have to do with jewelry? |