Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: Spehro Pefhany on 5 Nov 2006 12:11 On Sun, 05 Nov 2006 16:47:39 +0000, the renowned Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > >unsettled wrote: > >> jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >> >> > 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. > >I'd be shocked if you had to wait 3 months to see a specialist in the UK for cancer >! >Graham GP referral->oncologist-> surgery in a few weeks in Canada. That's non-elective and lives are at stake. HMOs seem to combine the worst features of both systems. 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: Eeyore on 5 Nov 2006 11:56 unsettled wrote: > Eeyore wrote: > > unsettled wrote: > >>Eeyore wrote: > > >>>T Wake posted that his local Tesco has it [buttermilk] btw. > > > > > > Tesco is a very popular UK supermarket chain btw. > > Been there, no buttermilk in the three I visited. http://uk.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20061028151602AAlA1dL Where can I get buttermilk in the uk? 14 answers Clearly not much demand here but all the larger supermarkets should have it. Graham
From: T Wake on 5 Nov 2006 11:59 <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote in message news:T4c3h.1662$r12.1298(a)newssvr12.news.prodigy.com... > > "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. >> [unsettled] >> Of course this doesn't cover any "off the books" >> income. Obviously not. It also doesn't cover any income from things like bank robberies. >>> 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. >> [unsettled] >> Are you telling us that the numbers are an estimate? No, I am saying they are accurate to one millionth of a penny. Your grasp of statistics is mind numbing. >>>>>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. >> [unsettled] >> 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. Your cluelessness is comical. [lucasea] > 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? Unsettled remains blind to the facts of most things. He thinks that because his contribution (which is in addition to any insurance premiums paid by others) is less than the total contribution paid in the UK it is a better deal. Amazing. Not to mention the uncovered services.
From: unsettled on 5 Nov 2006 12:03 T Wake wrote: > "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message > news:454DB658.6B5A097A(a)hotmail.com... Selective editing of posts by both of you as a "debating tactic" invalidates your output.
From: T Wake on 5 Nov 2006 12:03
"John Fields" <jfields(a)austininstruments.com> wrote in message news:m7eqk2tf978oiun9ltdrtvgmqr2ma6el1c(a)4ax.com... > On Sat, 4 Nov 2006 21:56:03 -0000, "T Wake" > <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: > > >> Shouldn't all physicians be able to justify the medicine they prescribe? > > --- > "Justify the medicine they prescribe"? That makes no sense. If a doctor prescribes medicine "X" for ailment "Y" I certainly hope he has a good reason for doing so. You may feel otherwise. > What does make sense is holding a physician accountable for his > prescription. Which is saying the same thing in different words, and out of the context in which my post was made. If you had left the previous messages in it would be easier to explain. Do you mean to imply that doctors should not be required to be capable of providing justification for the medicine they prescribe to a patient? |