Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: Eeyore on 5 Nov 2006 11:32 lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net wrote: > Incidentally, I think the idea of a copayment is a good one. It's really a > minimal cost, but it makes the patient think twice about going to the doctor > every time they have a sniffle. Some people are serious hypochondriacs, and > would end up costing large amounts of money and clogging up their doctors > with visits if there wasn't some small incentive to make sure they really > need care before getting it. Over here they deal with that by employing dragons to answer the phone ! These days they like to know why you want to see the Doc. Graham
From: T Wake on 5 Nov 2006 11:39 <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message news:eikp37$8qk_001(a)s1014.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... > 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 have read it, I obviously haven't understood it which is why I asked. It would help if you could maintain consistency. > 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. You obsess over unions controlling and destroying things. I suspect it is more a case of the medical system you have, has too many overheads and profit not aid as a motive. You may well discover that while nationalised healthcare is not ideal, it is better. In the UK we have a combination, there is the NHS which provides a service for _everyone_, but people can also choose to "go private" and fund their own treatment (or use organisations like BUPA to pay for private healthcare). Personally, while I can think of improvements, it strikes me as this is the best system available. >> yet highlight how it is failing. > > Go back and read. Why? I have read it and it didnt make sense. Reading it a second time will not help things. >>>>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. Not really. An ailing workforce is a problem for society. [Simplistic Example] If the poor can not afford adequate healthcare, they become sick and less able to work (albeit at the menial tasks). This then begins the spiral as they have less money and are less able to remain healthy. The poor provide workers and consumers to support the rich. When the poor can not work the rich also suffer. It makes sense for all in a society to support the societies healthcare system. The same can not be said of running a car. > You expect daily maintenance > services to be done by other people for free. Nope. I dont. I pay my [higher rate] taxes without complaint. > 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. You have created two, very simplistic, options. In
From: T Wake on 5 Nov 2006 11:41 <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message news:eikpng$8qk_005(a)s1014.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... > In article <KZa3h.5012$B31.2822(a)newssvr27.news.prodigy.net>, > <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: >> >>"T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote in message >>news:SJqdneZANLpQVNHYnZ2dnUVZ8q-dnZ2d(a)pipex.net... >>> >>>> It isn't just one or two. It is everyone I listened to plus >>>> relatives of in-laws who needed the service. >>> >>> How many did you listen to? How many relatives? What percentage of the >>> total did this reflect? How did you ensure your sample was >>> representative >>> and not just people with complaints? >>> >>>> The only ones >>>> who thought Canada's medical system was wonderful were those >>>> husbands who were very, very sick. >>> >>> How can you make a claim like this? Did you speak to _every_ one? >>> >>> You were the first to complain about the data sample methods and >>> conclusions in the Lancet report, yet here you seem to be more than >>> happy >>> to weigh personal anecdote over data. >> >>Oh, but she's much better at it, > > I'm not only better at it, but I'm very, very, very good doing this > kind of work. What, making numbers up?
From: unsettled on 5 Nov 2006 11:42 Eeyore wrote: > > unsettled wrote: > > >>Eeyore wrote: >> >>>unsettled wrote: >>> >>>>lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net wrote: >>>> >>>>>"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message >>>>> >>>>>>Unsettled wrote >>>>> >>>>>>>I never was able to find buttermilk in any shop or >>>>>>>"supermarket." >>>>>> >>>>>>Probably because there's little demand for it. >>>>> >>>>>It's one of those regional cuisine things. >>>> >>>>It is a beverage many people like to drink. >>> >>> >>>Not here. >> >>Just where is "here"? Do you live in goat milk country, >>or perhaps camel milk country? > > > United Kingdom. > > > >>>T Wake posted that his local Tesco has it btw. > > > Tesco is a very popular UK supermarket chain btw. Been there, no buttermilk in the three I visited.
From: Eeyore on 5 Nov 2006 11:44
unsettled wrote: > Eeyore wrote: > > >>>How about talking to some actual Muslims before you make ridiculous > >>>statements like "they grow up in a culture of violence". > > I think I'm talking to one here. LOL. You don't pay much attention. I observe no religion. I find the concept quite perplexing given the ability to think rationally.. > >>Start by asking them about female circumcision. > > > > > > That's a traditional African practice not Islamic. > > "Although it is practiced by African Muslims, it is also known to exist > throughout the Middle East, though it is veiled in secrecy, unlike in > parts of Africa, where it is practiced relatively openly." > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Female_circumcision See another post where it was stated to be practiced by African Christians too. > >>Then ask them > >>about female rights to ownership of property, female education, > >>divorce laws. > > > That will depend on the laws of the country they live in. > > Muslim countries, not secular nations with a primarily > Muslim population. Is Turkey a 'Muslim' country by your definition then for example ? Or Tunisia ? Or Egypt ? > >>Ask what countries females can drive in. > > > How about naming the ones where they can't. I can only think of Saudi. I'm waiting for your reply. Please enter below. > >>Ask them > >>how many western women are trying to get custody of their children > >>after a divorce. > > > What's that about ? How does that relate to Islam ? > > If you don't understand now, no one can explain it to you. > This is an issue that's been in the mainstream news for > decades. Not here it hasn't. > >>How about the practice of chopping the hand off a thief, or > >>hanging a family member who dishonors the family? > > > There aren't many countries wher this is allowed. ISTRC the hand being chopped > > off goes way back before Islam btw. > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Rights_in_Islamic_Countries Whilst such abuses of human rights are despicable, I'm equally incensed at what the USA is currently doing to roll them back like legalised torture by 'exporting' your prisoners ( to Islamic countries quite often ! ). Graham |