Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: T Wake on 4 Nov 2006 12:17 <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message news:eii0o0$8ps_005(a)s792.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... > In article <I7I2h.500$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. Try doing both. I get the feeling you distance yourself from society somewhat, which may explain the perspective you bring to the discussion. Try talking to, and spending time with, Moslems. They are not very different from Christians. > 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. Really? >> 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. It isn't very odd. The hard part is working out who is projecting and who isn't.
From: T Wake on 4 Nov 2006 12:21 <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message news:eii3bf$8nc_006(a)s792.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... > In article <454B8CBB.216F8FE1(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: >>> >> 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' >>> >withsomething cheaper. >>> > >>> >Maybe we have different ideas of 'expensive' ? In the UK an NHS course >>> >of >>> >drugscosts ?6.50 ( ~ $12.30 ). >>> >>> Is that your copayment? >> >>We call it a precription charge. > > OK. The US' term is copayment. It is an interesting choice of words the US has coined. >> It's a flat rate for any course of one single >>drug which might be from 7 days to say 3 months. So if your treatment >>needs 2 >>drugs you pay ?6.50 ea for them. >> >> >>> What do they really cost? >> >>I've no idea. Usually more but not always since the NHS >>makes extensive use of >>generics which they ( and the pharmacists ) can buy in >>bulk and get a good price on. > > This means that you don't have access to any improved drugs. > The patent period, IRRC, in the US is 20 years. With your > drug plan, you have to use 20-year old medical drug technology. Not always. You have misread his post. The NHS makes extensive use of generics but they are not the *only* choice. That said, the approval cycle for a new drug is quite long now - this is a good thing though. >>> From what >>> I've read about UK social programs a lot of real costs are hidden >>> because a lot is subsidized. >> >>That's the whole point. If your drugs cost say ?200 you still only pay >>?6.50. >>This means good health care is affordable for all regardless of income. > > So who is paying for the rest of the cost? $200-$6.50=$193.50 > (I don't have a pound sign so I'll use dollars). Like all state funded institutions, taxpayers pay for the rest. I am sure you think this is a bad thing, but it really isn't. >>The appointment with the doctor or consultant is free of course since >>they're >>employed by the NHS ( actually these days the local Primary Care Trust ). > > Just because you don't pay for it does not mean there are no costs > for that delivery of service. Somebody is paying for suppplies, > labor, footprint, cleaning, disposing, etc. Yes. This is why we pay taxes.
From: Spehro Pefhany on 4 Nov 2006 12:37 On Sat, 04 Nov 2006 16:53:03 +0000, the renowned Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> 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 Dunno, but after a few weeks living in HK you start to feel like you need one. Best regards, Spehro Pefhany -- "it's the network..." "The Journey is the reward" speff(a)interlog.com Info for manufacturers: http://www.trexon.com Embedded software/hardware/analog Info for designers: http://www.speff.com
From: Spehro Pefhany on 4 Nov 2006 12:42 On Sat, 4 Nov 2006 16:29:41 -0000, the renowned "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: > >"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message >news:454CAFB9.3433D447(a)hotmail.com... >> >> >> unsettled wrote: >> >>> Eeyore wrote: >>> > jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >>> >> "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: >>> >> >>> >>>When people I know go to [Insert European Destination Here] on >>> >>>Holiday, they >>> >>>will often shop for things as well. >>> >>> >>> >>>Isn't it strange. >>> >>> >>> >>>Also, we actually do have shopping malls here in Europe. >>> >>> >>> >>>What a wonderful world we live in. >>> >> >>> >>Think about how mobile people how work are. When they >>> >>go visit a foreign for their jobs, they experience new >>> >>foods, products, etc. They bring back enough and their >>> >>neighbors see the stuff or taste it. So now they would >>> >>like to have some. The next time a friend of theirs goes >>> >>to that country, he a grocery list. Eventually when the >>> >>authors of the list go on vacation, part of the constraint >>> >>of their plans is go somewhere so they can stock up on X >>> >>product. >>> > >>> > >>> > There's no real need to do that in the UK since we have the ingredients >>> > for most >>> > world cooking available in the shops here. >>> >>> I never was able to find buttermilk in any shop or >>> "supermarket." >> >> Probably because there's little demand for it. I've not even sure what it >> is ! > >More a case of Unsettled either looking in the wrong shops (hardware stores >seem to fit with his thinking) or some element of his mental state rendering >him incapable of finding it. > >The Tesco store in Andover had it in stock today. Ketchup chips (crisps) are virtually unavailable in the US. And, at least in NY state, good old Mike's Hard Lemonade is made (by law) only with foul-tasting malt liquor rather than proper vodka. Best regards, Spehro Pefhany -- "it's the network..." "The Journey is the reward" speff(a)interlog.com Info for manufacturers: http://www.trexon.com Embedded software/hardware/analog Info for designers: http://www.speff.com
From: unsettled on 4 Nov 2006 12:29
T Wake wrote: > <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. > > Except for the fact that I prefer to go to Mayo Clinic for my annual "preventive care" physical exam, my annual would be 100% covered by insurance. |