Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: unsettled on 5 Nov 2006 11:12 jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > In article <QqSdnTiCZpUVWtHYRVnyuQ(a)pipex.net>, > "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> 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/PressRelea > > se > >>>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 > > > Then you haven't read what I wrote. I think it sucks. There is > no longer any delivery of services when needed. The biz has > changed to specialized cut&paste with administrators assigning > each page of text piecemeal. The medical practioners have become > unionized and don't know it by handing all their business controls > over to the government-approved bodies. I am guessing your experience is with HMO medical care. In that case I agree. My experience is with regular non-HMO insurance, and my experience has been favorable. I had a neighbor whose appointments with HMO specialists was always 3 months in the future. His problem was the recurrence of a fast growing cancer. Predictably, it got him. HMO was the system he purchased, when he had other choices. He was a nice guy, and I hate what happened to him, but he had convinced himself he was getting the best medical care available, and there was no talking him out of it. As best I can tell, HMO's are a parallel to Natinal Health Care as it is practiced in the UK and Canada. >>yet highlight how it is failing. > > > Go back and read. > > >>>>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. > > > What we are talking about is the same. You expect daily maintenance > services to be done by other people for free. The only way > to get this work without paying them cash is to 1. have it insured > so the insurance company pays them or 2. have the government control > and run the payouts and allotting of services. > > Neither will work efficiently nor deliver service on demand. You > have to plan how to be sick or have somebody do it for you. That > is why people who are very ill have to have a patient advocate. > These were not needed before this medical insurance business > became a right instead of a benefit. > > Canada's system does not work for a certain class of services. > People who need those services were able to come to the US and > get them in a timely manner. When the US converts to a > single payer system, like Canada, the Canadians and the USians > who need these services will have to go to another country > whose medical infrastructure will provide. Best guess...the > nearest country who can deliver quality services would be Cuba > (if they get their act together). The current country is Mexico > but I haven't h
From: Eeyore on 5 Nov 2006 11:15 unsettled wrote: > Eeyore wrote: > > lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net wrote: > >>"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message > >> > >>>Can you get US comprehensive ( no exclusions ) medical insurance for $2418 > >>>regardless of age or medical history ? > >> > >>Of course not. However, since his/her employer pays his/hers, all he knows > >>is it's free and if we were to nationalize, it would cost him/her a paltry > >>extra 4 % of his/her income. Such simple-minded thinking, along with the > >>attitude "I've got mine, go find your own somewhere else" is what keeps us > >>from adopting a realistic system of health care...that and the drug and > >>insurance lobbies, that plant such misanthropic thinking in peoples' heads > >>and panders to their basest selfish emotions. > > > > > > I just checked out Blue Cross HMO Select ( California ). I see the cost varies > > according to where you live ! > > > > Visits to the Doctor still cost $25 and nothing seems to be 100% covered. > > > > Between $249 and $475 PCM for a single person of my age. Say $365 avg - that's > > $4380 pa ( ?2305 ) - add in uncovered costs and that's easily twice the UK NHS > > cost. > > > > No cover over 64 it seems ! What happens then ? > > Between age 64 and 65 the individual is forced into a program > negotiated with each individual state. Those vary all over the > place in cost. At 65 one qualifies for Medicare and can purchase > supplementary coverage. You mean when it becomes uneconomic for 'the market' to supply affordable healthcare, the state finally steps in ? Funny that ! Maybe you'd like to ponder the thinking behind it ? > I have never signed up with an HMO. I refuse to be at the mercy > of a single physician's ideas, especially when that physician > is responsible for holding down costs and his personal income > is tied to his success at cost containment. I have always been > willing to pay for the right to seek medical advice anywhere. I only looked at HMO pricing since I gather that's less expensive ( i don't even know what it stands for in fact ). I believe it's very popular. Graham
From: Eeyore on 5 Nov 2006 11:17 unsettled wrote: > Eeyore wrote: > > > Perhaps you'd like to enlighten us what you believe the reason for the 1973 Oil > > Embargo was ? > > Asked and answered. Nope. Come on. it won't hurt to tell ! Graham
From: Eeyore on 5 Nov 2006 11:24 T Wake wrote: > <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message > > > What?! No Mexican food? > > Oddly, Mexican (and Mexican restaurants) are common enough in the UK that > most people tend to ignore them as an "ethnic" dish - a bit like the way > Curries are pretty much British food now. You know, I've never come across one myself ! > (I've never found one in India > like the ones British people think are "Indian" food...). I have, in the more upmarket restaurants, hotels in Mumbai. Graham
From: Eeyore on 5 Nov 2006 11:26
T Wake wrote: > <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote in message > > > > There is a certain musical instrument shop (Renaissance Workshop Co.) in > > Bradford, from which I have ordered a number of instruments and kits, > > since there is a dearth of good makers of renaissance woodwinds in the US. > > As a total aside, do you know of where I can get CD/MP3s of Medieval or > Renaissance woodwind music? You might find someone who can help in uk.rec.audio or even rec.audio.opinion. Graham |