Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: Lloyd Parker on 6 Nov 2006 06:23 In article <1eebb$454ca48a$4fe7327$8293(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: >Eeyore wrote: > >> >> jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >> >> >>> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> >>>>It's a flat rate for any course of one single >>>>drug which might be from 7 days to say 3 months. So if your treatment needs 2 >>>>drugs you pay ?6.50 ea for them. >>>> >>>> >>>>>What do they really cost? >>>> >>>>I've no idea. Usually more but not always since the NHS >>>>makes extensive use of >>>>generics which they ( and the pharmacists ) can buy in >>>>bulk and get a good price on. >>> >>>This means that you don't have access to any improved drugs. >> >> >> No. Where did I say we used generics *exclusively* ? Please *READ* what I wrote. >> The NHS makes extensive use of generics where *suitable* to save costs. >> >> >> >>>The patent period, IRRC, in the US is 20 years. With your >>>drug plan, you have to use 20-year old medical drug technology. >> >> >> No. Read what I wrote. >> >> >> >>>>>From what >>>>>I've read about UK social programs a lot of real costs are hidden >>>>>because a lot is subsidized. >>>> >>>>That's the whole point. If your drugs cost say ?200 you still only pay ?6.50. >>>>This means good health care is affordable for all regardless of income. >>> >>>So who is paying for the rest of the cost? $200-$6.50=$193.50 >>>(I don't have a pound sign so I'll use dollars). >> >> >> It comes from NHS funding. >> >> It's a shockingly socialist concept isn't it but even the political right here >> recognise how well it works. The simple truth is that the NHS has transformed >> health care in the UK compared to its pre-WW2 status. >> >> Life expectancy here is in fact a few years longer than the USA for example. >> >> >> >>>>The appointment with the doctor or consultant is free of course since they're >>>>employed by the NHS ( actually these days the local Primary Care Trust ). >>> >>>Just because you don't pay for it does not mean there are no costs >>>for that delivery of service. Somebody is paying for suppplies, >>>labor, footprint, cleaning, disposing, etc. >> >> >> Yes. The tax paying public does through National Insurance contributions and >> general taxation. >> >> We like it that way since everyone gets covered. It's a very equitable system. > > >If socialism were equitable, we'd have it in the US. > Oh please. This is the country that's next to last in believing in evolution. >The entire point of socialism is the involuntary >redistribution of wealth. Actually every gov't does that, with taxation and spending. > >If your NHS were equitable the poor would receive services >corresponding to their contribution, as would the wealthy. > That's not how society works, period. Heck, it's not even how insurance works in this country. Should the rich get better police protection? Better fire protection? >If your NHS were equitable there would be no physicians >in private practice. > >
From: Lloyd Parker on 6 Nov 2006 06:26 In article <MPG.1fb683e1f860803a989a88(a)news.individual.net>, krw <krw(a)att.bizzzz> wrote: >In article <eifrsp$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? > You now have a choice of deducting your sales tax or your state income tax. It was put in a few years ago because some states don't have an income tax. Again, you right-wing anti-gov't folks should learn what you're talking about first.
From: Lloyd Parker on 6 Nov 2006 06:43 In article <eikp37$8qk_001(a)s1014.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >In article <QqSdnTiCZpUVWtHYRVnyuQ(a)pipex.net>, > >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. Right now, a number of Americans are going to ... India for medical care. Care to explain why? > 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 heard how well these clinics do. > > >/BAH
From: Lloyd Parker on 6 Nov 2006 06:24 In article <1eebb$454ca48a$4fe7327$8293(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: >Eeyore wrote: If US health care is so great for everyone, explain this: Chicago Sun-Times: NEW DELHI, India -- Greg Goodell flew from Iowa to India to have his arteries unclogged. Rick Thues made the trip from California for a new hip. John Terhune ventured from Indiana for a hip-and-knee combo. Combined, all three saved about $140,000, including the cost of travel and hotels, by having their surgeries last month in New Delhi instead of America -- where the health care system had simply failed them. All in their 50s and fully employed, these men are among the estimated 500,000 Americans who are taking their health into their own hands by choosing medical care abroad. Many are stuck in a growing gap of uninsured or underinsured who are too young for Medicare and left with only losing health care options: siphoning their retirement, living in pain or possibly dying. "Our share of the American dream has been lost in the past five years," said Thues, 53, a computer consultant from Orange, Calif. "Look at what we've outsourced -- I'm even outsourcing my own health, for God's sakes." He is fully covered under his wife's insurance, and could have had total hip replacement back home for about $5,000 out of his own pocket. But it's not the newest procedure available, and would have severely limited his mobility, kept him from his passion of skydiving, and possibly sent him back to the hospital in 10 years with more problems. Thues lobbied to undergo hip resurfacing, a new, less-invasive technique approved in the U.S. this year. But he was denied. So, he and his wife, Paula, hopped on a plane to Delhi and visited Dr. S.K.S. Marya, chief surgeon at the Max Super Speciality Hospital's Institute of Orthopedics & Joint Replacement, who has performed some 150 hip resurfacing operations over the past two years for about $7,000 each. Within a few days, Thues was up walking and already talking about his next jump from a plane in six months -- the whole trip including the surgery, airfares, lodging and a trip to the Taj Mahal totaled about $12,000, none of which was covered by his insurance. "I was so let down by my HMO. The whole idea that they denied me because they could," he said while recovering at his hotel near the airport in New Delhi. "I've paid thousands of dollars in premiums over the years. It's their job to look after me." Greg Goodell, 57, from Shenandoah, Iowa, ended up at the same Indian hospital as Thues. In August while bicycling, he felt a strange tightening in his chest and realized something was wrong. But the self-employed finishing painter was uninsured and knew the price of an angiogram test alone, quoted at $4,000 to $29,000 by nearby hospitals, could have put a big dent in the family's savings. With a wife and five kids to consider, he said he put his faith in God and had an angioplasty with two stents inserted in India for about $10,000. "When you first start, you're not sure. You think, 'Wow that's a long ways away.' But when you're faced with the other option, you want to check it out," he said two days after being discharged. "We felt comfortable. We didn't really have any red flags ever." But Goodell did encounter a few downsides of traveling. He and his wife, Kriss, both experienced bouts of diarrhea during the trip, and their luggage was lost for three days. Goodell also had a slight mishap while walking near Delhi's congested roads: He sliced his head open on a metal sign, resulting in six stitches. Still, he said the setbacks were minor, given that his heart was fixed without breaking the bank. The couple's whole trip ran about $16,500. Uninsured Indianapolis chiropractor John Terhune, 57, didn't need any persuasion. He underwent hip resurfacing surgery in his left leg a year and a half ago in the southern Indian city of Chennai and was so pleased with the results, he came back to have the right hip done by Dr. Marya in New Delhi. And he got a partial replacement for his left knee to boot. Both surgeries totaled less than $12,000 -- about 85 percent off the U.S. price tag -- plus another $3,000 for travel and accommodation. "There's just no decision to it. I mean, the writing's on the wall," he said from his hospital bed. "I would still come over here for resurfacing if I were insured." AP
From: Lloyd Parker on 6 Nov 2006 06:27
In article <7c194$454cbcfb$4fe7077$9299(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: >krw wrote: >> In article <eifrsp$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? > >It used to be true. But you probably aren't old enough >to know anything about "no taxes on taxes." I haven't >seen sales tax deduction in a long time, It's back in there; you choose between deducting state income tax and sales tax, because some states have no income tax. >but then I >no longer have to look at itimized deductions so I >don't know what's there today. You also used to be >able to deduct miles traveled on toll roads (based >on paying a road tax on gasoline) and well as any >taxes paid to the state for any reason. > |