Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: T Wake on 4 Nov 2006 16:56 "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message news:454CE011.994DEEAB(a)hotmail.com... > > > unsettled wrote: > >> T Wake wrote: >> >> > Not always. You have misread his post. The NHS makes extensive use of >> > generics but they are not the *only* choice. >> >> If I'm not mistaken, the physician must be able to justify >> prescribing higher priced medicines. > > It's done on the basis of clinical need. As it should be. Also in cases where there are no generics (i.e. patents still in force) then the "higher priced" medicines are the only ones they prescribe. Most prescriptions I have had, have not mentioned a brand name and sometimes I get a "branded" product. Sometimes I don't. However, the point still stands. /BAH misread the post and jumped (as always) to the incorrect conclusion. Shouldn't all physicians be able to justify the medicine they prescribe?
From: lucasea on 4 Nov 2006 17:06 <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message news:eihvrr$8ps_002(a)s792.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... > 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. Why? That's an assumption. > So a national health insurer will not work well. This prediction is tied to the weak assumption above. > Congress even did something sensible and passed an extraordinary > insurance. The youngsteres who ran AARP caused their subscribers > to get it repealed. You don't think *anybody* you can think for themselves but disagree with you, do you? Eric Lucas
From: lucasea on 4 Nov 2006 17:07 <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message news:eihvvg$8ps_003(a)s792.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... > >>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. That's because it's an inappropriate analogy. Eric Lucas
From: lucasea on 4 Nov 2006 17:10 <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? How about talking to some actual Muslims before you make ridiculous statements like "they grow up in a culture of violence". Eric Lucas
From: lucasea on 4 Nov 2006 17:11
<jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message news:eii14g$8ps_008(a)s792.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... > In article <taI2h.502$Mw.5(a)newssvr11.news.prodigy.com>, > <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: >> >><jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message >>news:eifet5$8qk_006(a)s820.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... >>> In article <Gun2h.3654$B31.3169(a)newssvr27.news.prodigy.net>, >>> <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: >>>> >>>><jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message >>>>news:eicnua$8qk_009(a)s950.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... >>>>> In article <691d6$4548e447$4fe7703$17646(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, >>>>> unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: >>>>>>jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> In article <8594c$45468e46$4fe716b$704(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, >>>>>>> unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>In article <Lga1h.2227$s6.11(a)newssvr11.news.prodigy.com>, >>>>>>>>> <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>"unsettled" <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>>news:cb1d3$45452d8a$4fe72af$23817(a)DIALUPUSA.NET... >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>snip >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>Nothing about annihilation of western civilization is amusing. >>>>>>>>>>>>This is serious business and it will take another three massive >>>>>>>>>>>>killings before the insane politicians are thrown out and >>>>>>>>>>>>ones who are willing to deal with problem constructively are >>>>>>>>>>>>put back in power. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>Those who persist in denying the announced and obvious >>>>>>>>>>>end up driving the defensive system towards an eventual >>>>>>>>>>>dictatorial authority. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>Hitler's Mein Kampf was not a secret. The agenda was >>>>>>>>>>>mapped out in advance. Militant Islam has been advocating >>>>>>>>>>>against the west for decades. Despite the protestations >>>>>>>>>>>of some, it is a religion spread by violence and has been >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>from the day that Mohammed decided he was heading up a >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>new religion. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>If we look at British conduct in the face of Hitler's >>>>>>>>>>>growing menace, we see the same sorts of appeasement >>>>>>>>>>>as is being promoted in these related threads. In the >>>>>>>>>>>case of Britain, they eventually put Churchill in >>>>>>>>>>>charge. He was one of those "last choice" sorts of >>>>>>>>>>>men that the appeasers disdained. They historically >>>>>>>>>>>worked hard to derail him but there came a moment >>>>>>>>>>>of truth when they were finally unable to deny the >>>>>>>>>>>realities facing them any longer, and needed a >>>>>>>>>>>strong man to drive them towards victory. By that >>>>>>>>>>>time they were in trouble, so America was pulled >>>>>>>>>>>into the fray, with its own dictator style president >>>>>>>>>>>at the helm replaced eventually (after death) by a >>>>>>>>>>>sleeper sort of a strong man who didn't hesitate to >>>>>>>>>>>use the atomic bomb to end the Pacific war. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>How many today would have the nerve to actually use a >>>>>>>>>>>nuclear weapon? Certainly none of the appeasers here >>>>>>>>>>>want that to happen, but by their actions they're >>>>>>>>>>>driving the system towards the point where other >>>>>>>>>>>options will cease to exist. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>Unfortunately, with the sorts of "good human beings" >>>>>>>>>>>we're encountering in this newsgroup, we'll probably >>>>>>>>>>>evenually get to the point where we'll have to use >>>>>>>>>>>our own final solution to the problem by using nukes. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>History has taught us that it is a much smaller mess >>>>>>>>>>>if you take care of business and protect yourself >>>>>>>>>>>early in the game, rather than late. Keep on ignoring >>>>>>>>>>>all of history folks. I'll be investing in uranium >>>>>>>>>>>futures. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>BAH--this is a new low for you. Self-congratulation and attacking >>>>>>>>>>other >>>>>>>>>>posters by using another screen name. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>Huh? I can't write that well. You will assume any posture just >>>>>>>>>to avoid the facts of what is really going on. I don't know >>>>>>>>>how to deal with this kind of insanity. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>By making this sort of accuation he's avoiding >>>>>>>>the issues. He didn't have a single point to >>>>>>>>make about the content of the post. And if >>>>>>>>one considers the content of his posting, it >>>>>>>>actually has nothing at all to do with what's >>>>>>>>above. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>If anyone deserves to be ignored, he does. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> That's not a viable choice. When the US gets its Democrat for >>>>>>> President, s/he/it will think, talk and act like Eric portrays >>>>>>> in this discussion. That's the only reason I've stayed here so >>>>>>> long. >>>>>> >>>>>>You mean like Kerry and his latest debacle? >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Exactly. I knew he didn't like to work. What was really >>>>> weird is that the speech was so familiar; he'ld given a similar >>>>> sentiment when he was running for an office in 1972. At least the >>>>> news here reported that one. He's using his anti-Nam speeches. >>>>> The Democrats are turning this election year into another Nam >>>>> political tactic; so now I'm concentrating on reading about that >>>>> era. >>>> >>>>So you choose to listen to somebody who isn't even running for office, >>> >>> Kerry? He's running for President. >> >>Funny, we're not electing a president next week. Focus. > > I'm not the one who has to focus. The Democrats are the ones > who have to focus. That is what I'm saying in this thread. > They are avoiding everything that has to do with reality. And you need to listen. They are dealing with and talking about the issues, including national security. You just choose not to listen when they do. Eric Lucas |