Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: lucasea on 4 Nov 2006 20:21 "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote in message news:u7OdnQ8GMau5UdHYRVnyhA(a)pipex.net... > > <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message > news:eii3bf$8nc_006(a)s792.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... > >> OK. The US' term is copayment. > > It is an interesting choice of words the US has coined. It's now entered the lexicon, so people parrot it without question. However, it has long smacked of 1984-esque doublespeak to me. Eric Lucas
From: lucasea on 4 Nov 2006 21:20 "Ben Newsam" <ben.newsam(a)ukonline.co.uk> wrote in message news:oojpk2tg7e5iphjsl7qdafkucotg01m67q(a)4ax.com... > On Sat, 04 Nov 2006 13:59:10 +0000, Eeyore > <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > >>Expansionism ? What expansionism ? After we ( and the other allies ) >>kicked his >>troops back out of Kuwait he wasn't doing any expansion. > > It didn't get into the papers much, but there was a continuous > campaign of bombing and so on for many years after the Gulf War had > allegedly ended. To enforce the "no fly zone" mostly, I think. Look it > up. And none of that had anything to do with "expansionism". At worst, it *might* have been Saddam attacking his own citizens in the no-fly zones. However, based on the patterns of flights and such, I remember analysts at that time suggesting it was only Saddam thumbing his nose at Shrub Sr. Eric Lucas
From: lucasea on 4 Nov 2006 21:29 "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote in message news:oJSdnWrogpgZTNHYRVnyvg(a)pipex.net... > > "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message > news:454C9B45.980DB36A(a)hotmail.com... >> >> >> jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >> >>> <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: >>> ><jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message >>> >> <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: >>> >>> >>>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. >> >> Such as ? > > Fictional threats. Imagined disasters and general under the bed bogeymen. > All the real threats like them. When I was 3, my teenage sister used to babysit when my folks wanted to out to dinner. After I would go to bed, she would tell me there were alligators under the bed, and she would get a quiet night of watching TV, while I pulled the covers up over my head to keep safe. Despite this (or perhaps because of it), I've since developed a pretty well-developed sense of boogeymen used to manipulate behavior. Some people never have learned this lesson, are happy to be manipulated in this way, and actually stand up for their right to be manipulated in this way and call you "unpatriotic" or "stupid" or "unthinking" if you dare to question them. It's really quite odd behavior, if you ask me. Eric Lucas
From: lucasea on 4 Nov 2006 21:34 "unsettled" <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote in message news:f0388$454cd13f$4fe7077$10025(a)DIALUPUSA.NET... >T Wake wrote: > >> "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message >> news:454CAD3B.FF177A12(a)hotmail.com... >> >>>unsettled wrote: >>> >>> >>>>But then they tout their "free" national health care. Heck, >>>>they're too poor after paying all their taxes to be able >>>>to afford much of anything, >>> >>>LOL. UK incomes aren't that much less than US. >> >> >> Although "debating" with unsettled is akin to banging your head against a >> wall, I found some numbers out. >> >> Average US Salary in 2002 was $36,764 (Source: >> http://ask.yahoo.com/20040518.html), although the odd way they do things >> makes it hard to determine. One source suggests this has dropped >> (http://www.usatoday.com/money/economy/income/2006-02-23-fed-incomes_x.htm) >> or increased (depending how you read it), but it seems reasonable to >> suggest the average US income is $43,200 in 2004. > > Of course this doesn't cover any "off the books" > income. > >> In the UK the average income >> (http://www.statistics.gov.uk/downloads/theme_labour/ASHE_2006/2006_all_employees.pdf) >> is about ?21,476 per year. >> >> Now $43,200 is about ?22600 so the difference in pay is pretty small to >> say the least. >> >> One of the problems with this conversion though, is the US figure >> includes income from stocks, bonds, savings and the like while the UK one >> is just salary. > > Are you telling us that the numbers are an estimate? > >>>>and in the end they're paying >>>>more for health care than we do, >>> >>>Let's see some numbers then ! I'm all for seeing a fair comparison ! >> >> >> They certainly do not bear out unsettled's claims. >> >> >>>>but it isn't visible to >>>>them because the money trail is through government. >>> >>>?76.4 bn according to recent figures. That's ?1273 per head of >>>population. >>> >>>What are your numbers ? >>> >>>Can you get US comprehensive ( no exclusions ) medical insurance for >>>$2418 >>>regardless of age or medical history ? >> >> >> While it was far from easy getting information and answers about this, >> nothing I found suggested it was possible. > > I pay a little less than $2K per annum with copays for > medicines. I pay extra when I receive uncovered services, > such as $50 for a 5 hour mobile blood pressure monitoring > study. And I suppose you consider the premiums on your insurance, whoever pays them, to be free? And you accuse those who favor a nationalized system of being blind to the actual cost of health care? Eric Lucas
From: lucasea on 4 Nov 2006 21:49
"unsettled" <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote in message news:f15b$454d345f$4fe4d07$12623(a)DIALUPUSA.NET... > lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net wrote: > >> "unsettled" <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote in message >> news:15e6a$454cbf2e$4fe7077$9345(a)DIALUPUSA.NET... >> >>>krw wrote: >>> >>> >>>>In article <GRH2h.485$Mw.139(a)newssvr11.news.prodigy.com>, >>>>lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net says... >>>> >>>> >>>>><jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message >>>>>news:eifcgg$8qk_001(a)s820.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>Yes, Medicare and Medicaid in the US. If these two programs which >>>>>>are single payer don't work, why would making them be the only >>>>>>insurance payer in the country work? For that matter, why should >>>>>>we allow medical insurance payouts be a federal responsibility? That >>>>>>is undermining our Constitution by transferring power to the federal >>>>>>government rather than keeping it in each State. >>>>> >>>>>What part of "provide for the general welfare" do you not understand? >>>> >>>> >>>>Perhaps you want to read what the founding fathers thought it meant. >>>>Hint: I has nothing to do with what we call "welfare". >>> >>>Try common weal, sometimes commonweal. >>> >>>http://wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=commonweal >> >> >> Yes. And you don't think that the health of its citizens is a major part >> of the "common good". If it isn't, then exactly what *does* it refer to? > > I'm sory to note you have difficulty with the ordinary > English language and simple logic. > > Pull up the URL and read it. It isn't my definition, > it is an accepted one reported by Princeton University. I don't want to hear what PU has to say about it. I want to hear what *you* have to say about it. In your own words, now. Eric Lucas |