Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: lucasea on 6 Nov 2006 13:22 "unsettled" <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote in message news:ce217$454f7793$4fe7386$32431(a)DIALUPUSA.NET... > Lloyd Parker wrote: >> In article <12489$454cc7d3$4fe7077$9514(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, >> unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: >> >>>T Wake wrote: >>> >>> >>>><jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message >>>>news:eihvrr$8ps_002(a)s792.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... >>>> >>>> >>>>>In article <454B8A9B.7C879864(a)hotmail.com>, >>>>> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>>Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>That is why I'm trying to point out that having insurance is >>>>>>>>>not a guarantee you will get access to treatment when you need it. >>>>>>>>>The only thing our politicians are trying to do is to make >>>>>>>>>the insurance available to all from a single payer, the US >>>>>>>>>government. This will cause a decrease in access. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>How ? >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Doctors are also avoiding taking on new Medicare patients because >>>>>>>they don't paid for the services delivered in a timely manner. I >>>>>>>don't know how long the delay is now, but Dukakis years had a >>>>>>>payment delay of 9 months to 2 years. That means that a >>>>>>>pharmacist or a doctor had to wait that long before he got >>>>>>>paid for a service he provided years before. >>>>>> >>>>>>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. >>>> >>>> >>>>Why not? >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>>Congress even did something sensible and passed an extraordinary >>>>>insurance. The youngsteres who ran AARP caused their subscribers >>>>>to get it repealed. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>It's rare here to find a doctor who *doesn't* do NHS work. >>>>> >>>>>Is his license tied to volunteering? >>>> >>>> >>>>NHS work is not "volunteer" work. >>>> >>> >>>In the American lexicon, any work which pays less than >>>the maximum going rate is "volunteering." >>> >> >> >> So, teachers are volunteers. Policemen, firemen, ... >> >> Airline pilots who work for smaller airlines are volunteers too... > > I am pleased to announce that you and I live > in rather different worlds. So what exactly, pray tell, did you mean by your gem: "In the American lexicon, any work which pays less than the maximum going rate is 'volunteering'."??? Eric Lucas
From: unsettled on 6 Nov 2006 13:28 T Wake wrote: > "Ken Smith" <kensmith(a)green.rahul.net> wrote in message > news:einjea$b1$1(a)blue.rahul.net... > > >>Now the US is feared as one might a rabid dog. A country of 300 million >>mostly intelligent and honorable people does not deserve to be brought so >>low in the eyes of the world. We can only hope that some good people step >>forward, as they have in the past, and turn the country back onto the >>right path. > > > Well said. In real life I am not concerned about what derelicts hanging about street corners think of me.
From: unsettled on 6 Nov 2006 13:31 lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net wrote: > "unsettled" <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote in message > news:ce217$454f7793$4fe7386$32431(a)DIALUPUSA.NET... > >>Lloyd Parker wrote: >>>>In the American lexicon, any work which pays less than >>>>the maximum going rate is "volunteering." >>>> >>> >>> >>>So, teachers are volunteers. Policemen, firemen, ... >>> >>>Airline pilots who work for smaller airlines are volunteers too... >> >>I am pleased to announce that you and I live >>in rather different worlds. > > > So what exactly, pray tell, did you mean by your gem: "In the American > lexicon, any work which pays less than the maximum going rate is > 'volunteering'."??? > > Eric Lucas It is a simple sentence. Learn to parse.
From: Lloyd Parker on 6 Nov 2006 08:43 In article <eindeb$8qk_002(a)s943.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >In article <454F23F4.F28CDB32(a)hotmail.com>, > Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> >> >>jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >> >>> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> >Expansionism ? What expansionism ? After we ( and the other allies ) >kicked >>> >his troops back out of Kuwait he wasn't doing any expansion. >>> >>> The UK and US were spending tons of money to keep him in his cage. >> >>Your assertion only. > >You are hopeless. It is a fact. Just because you can't remember >what has happened does not make the event a fiction. >> >> >>> They were not reimbursed for that. >> >>And who would we be reimbursed by ? > >Sigh! The UN. IOW, the UN would collect the monies from its >members and pay the bill that the UK and US sent to the UN. > >/BAH > > > >> >>Graham >> The "no-fly" zones were created by the US and Britain -- they were never part of or mandated by any UN agreement.
From: Lloyd Parker on 6 Nov 2006 08:47
In article <c5919$454f47b3$4fe747e$31082(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > >> In article <MPG.1fb72cfb22c0d81989a98(a)news.individual.net>, >> krw <krw(a)att.bizzzz> wrote: >> >>>In article <sfa3h.4932$B31.2443(a)newssvr27.news.prodigy.net>, >>>lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net says... >>> >>>>"krw" <krw(a)att.bizzzz> wrote in message >>>>news:MPG.1fb684b3fd4ca419989a89(a)news.individual.net... >>>> >>>>>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". >>>> >>>>Yes, I know that. Its original meaning was the health of the people of the >>>>nation. >>> >>>Bullshit. >>> >> >> >> That is how the politically correct raionalized the change >> of having health *insurance* from a benefit to a right. > It's the easiest way to provide health care. >Even more than that, it is a major paradigm shift away from >making the federal (US) government responsible for maintaining >a stable economic environment. > Non sequitir. |