Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: lucasea on 5 Nov 2006 21:13 "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message news:454DEEDE.1ABCF618(a)hotmail.com... > > > jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > >> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >> >> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> >> > >> >> >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. So a national health insurer will not work well. >> > >> >The use of the word *so* implies some cause-effect relationship which >> >you >> >havefailed to show. I'm sorry but simple assertions based on political >> doctrine >> >count for nought. >> >> You are unbelievable. I'm getting to the point were I'm awestruck >> by your ability to not-think. > > On the contrary. I'm asking you to state unambiguously what your case is. > I don't > intend to make guesses about it. > > >> If a person botches a chore of >> digging a ditch in your backyard, would you really hire him >> to build a Panama Canal and expect it to work? > > No-one's botched anything wrt state supplied medicine as far as I can see. > Others > have already furnished data showing that US medicaid has a very low > overhead for > example. > > OTOH if you won't embrace the idea of universal health care then you've > hardly > got a great basis for comparison in the frist place have you ? > > >> >> Congress even did something sensible and passed an extraordinary >> >> insurance. The youngsteres who ran AARP caused their subscribers >> >> to get it repealed. >> > >> >I know nothing about this. >> >> Then learn. People do not want to pay for insurance either, >> especially if the insurance is prudent and make sense. > > It's not relevant to Europe. WEe're hardly likely to embrace a more > expensive and > discriminatory method of health care are we ? > > >> >> >It's rare here to find a doctor who *doesn't* do NHS work. >> >> >> >> Is his license tied to volunteering? >> > >> >Licence ? You mean his qualification as a doctor. That's dealt with by >> >the >> >BMA ( British Medical Association ) as it always has been. >> > >> >Most doctors here simply work for the NHS since it's the largest health >> >care >> >employer in the land. There's no compulsion to do so and you can work in >> >private practice to or even both, just like any other job. >> >> I smell union here. > > The BMA is not a memeber of the TUC AFAIK. > > Don't US doctors have a similar professional association ? Yes, the AMA. It's a professional association, not a union, in all senses of both words. Eric Lucas
From: lucasea on 5 Nov 2006 21:32 "unsettled" <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote in message news:78407$454df642$49ecf9b$23165(a)DIALUPUSA.NET... > lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net wrote: > >> "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. > > Are you some sort of control freak or are you just really > thick. I gave you a web page I agree with beccause it is > the accepted definition. Unbelievable. You aren't even able to explain it in your own words. And you call *me* thick. Eric Lucas
From: Eeyore on 5 Nov 2006 21:34 lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net wrote: > The lesson was that if you cry wolf too many times, then nobody > will believe you when there is something wrong. That lesson was lost on > Bush and the Republicans...and their uncritical minions like you and BAH. Surely you mean 'cry WMD' or somesuch ? Who would ever believe them now ? Graham
From: lucasea on 5 Nov 2006 21:35 "krw" <krw(a)att.bizzzz> wrote in message news:MPG.1fb7c4fb9605d7cd989a9c(a)news.individual.net... > In article <KYd3h.4613$7F3.1151(a)newssvr14.news.prodigy.com>, > lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net says... >> >> "krw" <krw(a)att.bizzzz> wrote in message >> news:MPG.1fb72c9273625a39989a97(a)news.individual.net... >> > In article <Fea3h.4927$B31.4835(a)newssvr27.news.prodigy.net>, >> > lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net says... >> >> >> >> "krw" <krw(a)att.bizzzz> wrote in message >> >> news:MPG.1fb683e1f860803a989a88(a)news.individual.net... >> >> > In article <eifrsp$irb$3(a)leto.cc.emory.edu>, lparker(a)emory.edu >> >> > says... >> >> >> In article <eifgj0$8qk_005(a)s820.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, >> >> >> jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >> >> >> >In article <ZDn2h.3658$B31.603(a)newssvr27.news.prodigy.net>, >> >> >> > <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: >> >> > >> >> > <big snip> >> >> > >> >> >> >>Nothing about income there. >> >> >> > >> >> >> >Pay attention to the if clause. There is paragraph that says >> >> >> >if you don't have records, you can opt to pay your out >> >> >> >of state purchases sales tax as a percentage of your income. >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> >> Sure, and for the IRS, you can estimate your sales tax deduction as >> >> >> a >> >> >> percentage of your income too. Nothing new there. >> >> > >> >> > IRS? "Sales tax deduction"? What drugs are you on? >> >> >> >> >> >> None. I've done it the last few years. You have to itemize in order >> >> to >> >> take advantage of it, though. >> > >> > You have no income tax? Try it next year. > ^ state >> >> What? Where did I say I have no income tax? > > The only way sales tax is deductible is if there is no state income > tax. Wrong. There are state income taxes in every state in which I've lived (six, now), and in every one, I've deducted the income tax from my Federal tax return. Eric Lucas
From: lucasea on 5 Nov 2006 21:43
"krw" <krw(a)att.bizzzz> wrote in message news:MPG.1fb7c488b59649a1989a9b(a)news.individual.net... > In article <cXd3h.4612$7F3.309(a)newssvr14.news.prodigy.com>, > lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net says... > >> No. In the US, they are valid for 17 years from the date the PTO grants >> them. > > I thought you said you knew something about patents. They now > expire 20 years from the date of filing. This change was made in > the early '90s, IIRC, to circumvent "submarine patents". > > http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/doc/general/index.html#patent > > "Generally, the term of a new patent is 20 years from the date > on which the application for the patent was filed in the United > States..." They did *not* make the change in the early 90s. It was discussed then, and rejected--that according to several patent attorneys I had worked with, and the PTO website around 2001 (last time I looked at it). They may have subsequently made the change since 2004, as I have not worked with a patent attorney since then. Eric Lucas |