Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.electronics.design > #460129 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2017-05-13 15:10 -0700 |
| Last post | 2017-05-26 13:43 -0700 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 264 — 26 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.electronics.design
What's wrong with "national health care"? Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2017-05-13 15:10 -0700
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? Cursitor Doom <curd@notformail.com> - 2017-05-13 22:54 +0000
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2017-05-13 15:59 -0700
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2017-05-14 00:34 +0100
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2017-05-13 17:11 -0700
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2017-05-14 08:49 +0100
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2017-05-14 02:00 -0700
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2017-05-14 10:14 +0100
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2017-05-14 08:31 -0700
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? Martin Brown <'''newspam'''@nezumi.demon.co.uk> - 2017-05-14 15:56 +0100
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2017-05-14 09:04 -0700
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2017-05-14 18:02 +0100
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2017-05-14 16:10 -0700
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2017-05-15 01:12 +0100
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2017-05-16 10:57 -0700
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2017-05-18 10:42 -0700
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-05-18 14:10 -0400
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-05-17 10:19 -0400
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2017-05-17 15:48 +0100
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-05-17 13:19 -0400
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2017-05-17 18:47 +0100
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-05-17 15:40 -0400
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2017-05-18 00:03 +0100
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-05-17 19:39 -0400
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2017-05-18 08:09 +0100
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? John Devereux <john@devereux.me.uk> - 2017-05-18 09:13 +0100
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2017-05-18 09:37 +0100
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-05-18 04:57 -0400
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? Martin Brown <'''newspam'''@nezumi.demon.co.uk> - 2017-05-19 09:58 +0100
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2017-05-17 08:21 -0700
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-05-17 13:28 -0400
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? Martin Brown <'''newspam'''@nezumi.demon.co.uk> - 2017-05-19 09:13 +0100
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2017-05-19 10:14 +0100
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-05-19 13:31 -0400
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2017-05-19 19:17 +0100
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-05-19 17:47 -0400
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2017-05-19 23:45 +0100
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2017-05-19 19:57 -0700
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-05-19 23:35 -0400
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2017-05-20 07:42 +0100
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2017-05-20 00:48 -0700
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? Martin Brown <'''newspam'''@nezumi.demon.co.uk> - 2017-05-23 09:24 +0100
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-05-23 12:19 -0400
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2017-05-23 17:44 +0100
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-05-23 16:49 -0400
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? Clifford Heath <no.spam@please.net> - 2017-05-24 08:29 +1000
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-05-23 19:26 -0400
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? Clifford Heath <no.spam@please.net> - 2017-05-24 11:32 +1000
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-05-24 01:16 -0400
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? krw@notreal.com - 2017-05-24 18:04 -0400
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2017-05-24 07:40 +0100
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? Jasen Betts <jasen@xnet.co.nz> - 2017-05-31 11:57 +0000
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-05-31 09:05 -0400
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? Jasen Betts <jasen@xnet.co.nz> - 2017-06-20 05:12 +0000
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? krw@notreal.com - 2017-05-23 21:07 -0400
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2017-05-23 19:04 -0700
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? krw@notreal.com - 2017-05-23 18:46 -0400
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-05-24 12:56 +0200
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-05-24 12:37 -0400
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? krw@notreal.com - 2017-05-24 18:12 -0400
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? Lasse Langwadt Christensen <langwadt@fonz.dk> - 2017-05-24 16:11 -0700
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? krw@notreal.com - 2017-05-24 19:49 -0400
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-05-26 15:41 +0200
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? krw@notreal.com - 2017-05-23 18:44 -0400
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? Martin Brown <'''newspam'''@nezumi.demon.co.uk> - 2017-05-14 18:18 +0100
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2017-05-14 18:54 +0100
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2017-05-14 23:00 -0700
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2017-05-15 15:32 +0100
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2017-05-15 15:01 -0700
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2017-05-16 00:52 +0100
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? kevin93 <kevin@whitedigs.com> - 2017-05-15 19:17 -0700
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2017-05-15 19:26 -0700
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2017-05-16 12:01 -0700
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2017-05-16 21:12 +0100
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2017-05-16 13:51 -0700
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? krw@notreal.com - 2017-05-16 20:26 -0400
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-05-17 15:50 -0400
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2017-05-14 13:27 -0700
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2017-05-14 22:00 +0100
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? kevin93 <kevin@whitedigs.com> - 2017-05-14 18:39 -0700
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? Lasse Langwadt Christensen <langwadt@fonz.dk> - 2017-05-13 16:20 -0700
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2017-05-13 17:05 -0700
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? Lasse Langwadt Christensen <langwadt@fonz.dk> - 2017-05-13 17:49 -0700
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> - 2017-05-13 18:02 -0700
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? krw@notreal.com - 2017-05-13 21:25 -0400
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-05-13 21:28 -0400
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2017-05-13 19:39 -0700
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? tabbypurr@gmail.com - 2017-05-15 13:05 -0700
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? krw@notreal.com - 2017-05-15 20:37 -0400
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? tabbypurr@gmail.com - 2017-05-15 18:19 -0700
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? krw@notreal.com - 2017-05-15 21:53 -0400
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? tabbypurr@gmail.com - 2017-05-16 09:18 -0700
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? krw@notreal.com - 2017-05-16 12:51 -0400
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? bitrex <bitrex@de.lete.earthlink.net> - 2017-05-20 11:54 -0400
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? krw@notreal.com - 2017-05-20 12:05 -0400
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? bitrex <bitrex@de.lete.earthlink.net> - 2017-05-22 08:58 -0400
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? krw@notreal.com - 2017-05-22 11:58 -0400
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2017-05-15 19:29 -0700
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2017-05-13 18:06 -0700
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? Lasse Langwadt Christensen <langwadt@fonz.dk> - 2017-05-13 18:38 -0700
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2017-05-13 18:44 -0700
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? "dcaster@krl.org" <dcaster@krl.org> - 2017-05-13 17:35 -0700
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? Lasse Langwadt Christensen <langwadt@fonz.dk> - 2017-05-13 17:56 -0700
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? krw@notreal.com - 2017-05-13 21:00 -0400
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? Lasse Langwadt Christensen <langwadt@fonz.dk> - 2017-05-13 18:11 -0700
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? krw@notreal.com - 2017-05-13 21:29 -0400
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? Lasse Langwadt Christensen <langwadt@fonz.dk> - 2017-05-13 18:47 -0700
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? krw@notreal.com - 2017-05-13 22:37 -0400
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? Lasse Langwadt Christensen <langwadt@fonz.dk> - 2017-05-13 19:56 -0700
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? krw@notreal.com - 2017-05-14 00:08 -0400
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? Lasse Langwadt Christensen <langwadt@fonz.dk> - 2017-05-13 21:20 -0700
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? krw@notreal.com - 2017-05-14 18:02 -0400
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2017-05-13 18:16 -0700
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2017-05-13 18:02 -0700
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? Martin Brown <'''newspam'''@nezumi.demon.co.uk> - 2017-05-14 15:58 +0100
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? Lasse Langwadt Christensen <langwadt@fonz.dk> - 2017-05-14 09:19 -0700
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2017-05-14 13:29 -0700
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-05-17 18:40 -0400
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? krw@notreal.com - 2017-05-14 18:04 -0400
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? George Herold <gherold@teachspin.com> - 2017-05-14 11:12 -0700
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2017-05-14 12:23 -0700
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? George Herold <gherold@teachspin.com> - 2017-05-14 10:55 -0700
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2017-05-14 13:32 -0700
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? krw@notreal.com - 2017-05-13 20:44 -0400
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-05-13 21:03 -0400
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? bitrex <bitrex@de.lete.earthlink.net> - 2017-05-13 20:17 -0400
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-05-13 20:57 -0400
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2017-05-14 08:55 +0100
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? bitrex <bitrex@de.lete.earthlink.net> - 2017-05-14 08:11 -0400
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2017-05-14 14:25 +0100
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-05-14 23:54 -0400
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2017-05-15 09:09 +0100
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-05-17 18:43 -0400
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2017-05-18 00:05 +0100
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2017-05-13 19:30 -0700
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? John Robertson <spam@flippers.com> - 2017-05-13 16:32 -0700
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2017-05-13 17:00 -0700
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? tabbypurr@gmail.com - 2017-05-13 16:39 -0700
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2017-05-13 17:18 -0700
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? tabbypurr@gmail.com - 2017-05-13 17:31 -0700
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2017-05-13 17:36 -0700
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? krw@notreal.com - 2017-05-13 20:58 -0400
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-05-13 21:40 -0400
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? tabbypurr@gmail.com - 2017-05-15 12:58 -0700
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-05-13 21:35 -0400
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? tabbypurr@gmail.com - 2017-05-15 13:17 -0700
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2017-05-15 19:04 -0700
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? tabbypurr@gmail.com - 2017-05-16 09:27 -0700
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2017-05-16 19:49 -0700
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-05-13 21:27 -0400
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? tabbypurr@gmail.com - 2017-05-15 13:13 -0700
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2017-05-15 18:53 -0700
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? tabbypurr@gmail.com - 2017-05-16 09:16 -0700
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2017-05-16 19:43 -0700
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-05-17 18:52 -0400
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2017-05-17 18:23 -0700
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? Martin Brown <'''newspam'''@nezumi.demon.co.uk> - 2017-05-19 09:59 +0100
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-05-17 18:47 -0400
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? Martin Riddle <martin_ridd@verizon.net> - 2017-05-13 20:06 -0400
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? mrdarrett@gmail.com - 2017-05-17 12:53 -0700
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? Clifford Heath <clifford.heath@gmail.com> - 2017-05-14 13:33 +1000
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-05-13 23:53 -0400
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? krw@notreal.com - 2017-05-14 00:11 -0400
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? tabbypurr@gmail.com - 2017-05-15 13:24 -0700
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? krw@notreal.com - 2017-05-15 20:39 -0400
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2017-05-15 19:16 -0700
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? tabbypurr@gmail.com - 2017-05-16 09:29 -0700
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-05-17 18:58 -0400
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2017-05-13 21:04 -0700
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? krw@notreal.com - 2017-05-14 00:10 -0400
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? Clifford Heath <clifford.heath@gmail.com> - 2017-05-14 14:29 +1000
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-05-14 00:48 -0400
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? Phil Allison <pallison49@gmail.com> - 2017-05-14 00:13 -0700
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? krw@notreal.com - 2017-05-14 18:10 -0400
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? bitrex <bitrex@de.lete.earthlink.net> - 2017-05-18 09:44 -0400
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? krw@notreal.com - 2017-05-18 12:34 -0400
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? bitrex <bitrex@de.lete.earthlink.net> - 2017-05-18 09:34 -0400
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? Lasse Langwadt Christensen <langwadt@fonz.dk> - 2017-05-18 09:03 -0700
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? krw@notreal.com - 2017-05-18 12:36 -0400
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-05-18 14:12 -0400
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? Lasse Langwadt Christensen <langwadt@fonz.dk> - 2017-05-18 14:36 -0700
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? krw@notreal.com - 2017-05-18 17:43 -0400
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? bitrex <bitrex@de.lete.earthlink.net> - 2017-05-18 18:01 -0400
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? Lasse Langwadt Christensen <langwadt@fonz.dk> - 2017-05-18 15:18 -0700
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? bitrex <bitrex@de.lete.earthlink.net> - 2017-05-18 19:39 -0400
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-05-18 21:26 -0400
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-05-19 09:22 +0200
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-05-19 13:37 -0400
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? krw@notreal.com - 2017-05-19 17:51 -0400
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-05-22 11:30 +0200
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-05-22 12:32 -0400
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-05-23 10:58 +0200
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-05-23 17:09 -0400
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? Lasse Langwadt Christensen <langwadt@fonz.dk> - 2017-05-23 14:30 -0700
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-05-24 13:30 +0200
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-05-24 13:01 -0400
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-05-26 15:43 +0200
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-05-18 21:13 -0400
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? Clifford Heath <no.spam@please.net> - 2017-05-19 07:50 +1000
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? krw@notreal.com - 2017-05-18 20:03 -0400
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? Phil Allison <pallison49@gmail.com> - 2017-05-13 20:39 -0700
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? Rheilly Phoull <rheilly@bigslong.com> - 2017-05-14 12:19 +0800
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2017-05-13 22:08 -0700
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? Phil Allison <pallison49@gmail.com> - 2017-05-13 22:20 -0700
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? bitrex <bitrex@de.lete.earthlink.net> - 2017-05-18 18:10 -0400
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-05-18 21:31 -0400
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? Martin Brown <'''newspam'''@nezumi.demon.co.uk> - 2017-05-14 10:28 +0100
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2017-05-14 10:53 +0100
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2017-05-16 12:30 -0700
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-05-17 19:17 -0400
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? Martin Brown <'''newspam'''@nezumi.demon.co.uk> - 2017-05-19 11:49 +0100
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2017-05-19 12:56 -0700
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? krw@notreal.com - 2017-05-19 18:05 -0400
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? Martin Brown <'''newspam'''@nezumi.demon.co.uk> - 2017-05-20 08:36 +0100
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2017-05-20 15:58 -0700
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? Martin Brown <'''newspam'''@nezumi.demon.co.uk> - 2017-05-23 10:21 +0100
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2017-05-23 13:26 -0700
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-05-23 17:41 -0400
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? Clifford Heath <no.spam@please.net> - 2017-05-24 08:37 +1000
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-05-24 00:45 -0400
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? krw@notreal.com - 2017-05-23 18:52 -0400
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2017-05-15 00:52 -0700
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2017-05-15 15:16 +0100
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2017-05-15 08:08 -0700
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? tabbypurr@gmail.com - 2017-05-15 13:33 -0700
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? Martin Brown <'''newspam'''@nezumi.demon.co.uk> - 2017-05-19 09:50 +0100
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-05-16 01:32 -0400
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2017-05-16 08:05 +0100
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-05-17 19:19 -0400
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? Spehro Pefhany <speffSNIP@interlogDOTyou.knowwhat> - 2017-05-25 08:57 -0400
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-05-25 11:49 -0400
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2017-05-25 18:04 +0100
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-05-25 13:15 -0400
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? Martin Brown <'''newspam'''@nezumi.demon.co.uk> - 2017-05-26 09:15 +0100
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2017-05-26 09:28 +0100
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-05-26 04:40 -0400
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com - 2017-05-31 06:19 -0700
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2017-05-31 18:08 -0700
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? krw@notreal.com - 2017-05-25 18:30 -0400
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2017-05-25 13:15 -0700
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? Martin Brown <'''newspam'''@nezumi.demon.co.uk> - 2017-05-26 09:54 +0100
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2017-05-26 12:23 -0700
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? Lasse Langwadt Christensen <langwadt@fonz.dk> - 2017-05-26 13:44 -0700
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2017-05-26 13:47 -0700
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? Jasen Betts <jasen@xnet.co.nz> - 2017-06-24 00:18 +0000
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? Jasen Betts <jasen@xnet.co.nz> - 2017-06-24 00:24 +0000
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2017-06-24 09:20 -0700
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-06-24 12:38 -0400
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? Lasse Langwadt Christensen <langwadt@fonz.dk> - 2017-06-24 12:11 -0700
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2017-06-24 13:04 -0700
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? Martin Brown <'''newspam'''@nezumi.demon.co.uk> - 2017-06-29 14:20 +0100
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2017-06-29 15:37 -0700
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? Martin Brown <'''newspam'''@nezumi.demon.co.uk> - 2017-06-30 11:05 +0100
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2017-06-30 08:13 -0700
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? krw@notreal.com - 2017-06-30 12:26 -0400
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2017-06-30 03:43 -0700
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-05-26 21:07 -0400
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? Lasse Langwadt Christensen <langwadt@fonz.dk> - 2017-05-26 18:59 -0700
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? krw@notreal.com - 2017-05-26 22:17 -0400
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? Martin Brown <'''newspam'''@nezumi.demon.co.uk> - 2017-05-27 09:37 +0100
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? krw@notreal.com - 2017-05-27 09:30 -0400
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2017-05-27 18:23 -0700
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? Spehro Pefhany <speffSNIP@interlogDOTyou.knowwhat> - 2017-05-26 08:47 -0400
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2017-05-26 13:43 -0700
Page 9 of 14 — ← Prev page 1 … 7 8 [9] 10 11 … 14 Next page →
| From | Clifford Heath <clifford.heath@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-14 13:33 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <zeQRA.45516$3M3.6199@fx16.iad> |
| In reply to | #460129 |
On 14/05/17 08:10, Don Y wrote: > So, for the folks who live/work in places with "national health care" > (whatever THAT means), what's *wrong* with it? I.e., what would you > wish was different/better? How are your "death panels" implemented? > How is care "rationed"? What have you NOT been given (by way of care) > that you feel you ought to have? > > I.e., if you were starting from scratch to reinvent YOUR system, what > would you change? From most aspects, the Australian system would be hard to improve on. We don't suffer the American problem of too much lawyering, so costs are not exorbitant, and basically if you need treatment, you get it. Sooner if you have private cover, but you still get treated.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-13 23:53 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <of8k64$gg8$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #460183 |
On 5/13/2017 11:33 PM, Clifford Heath wrote: > On 14/05/17 08:10, Don Y wrote: >> So, for the folks who live/work in places with "national health care" >> (whatever THAT means), what's *wrong* with it? I.e., what would you >> wish was different/better? How are your "death panels" implemented? >> How is care "rationed"? What have you NOT been given (by way of care) >> that you feel you ought to have? >> >> I.e., if you were starting from scratch to reinvent YOUR system, what >> would you change? > > From most aspects, the Australian system would be hard to improve on. > > We don't suffer the American problem of too much lawyering, so costs > are not exorbitant, and basically if you need treatment, you get it. > Sooner if you have private cover, but you still get treated. Another load of applesauce. Our legal system has nothing to do with the cost of healthcare in the US. -- Rick C
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | krw@notreal.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-14 00:11 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <j6mfhchobb2e6r3cg7eo9mfo742rkt0cfq@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #460188 |
On Sat, 13 May 2017 23:53:50 -0400, rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> wrote: >On 5/13/2017 11:33 PM, Clifford Heath wrote: >> On 14/05/17 08:10, Don Y wrote: >>> So, for the folks who live/work in places with "national health care" >>> (whatever THAT means), what's *wrong* with it? I.e., what would you >>> wish was different/better? How are your "death panels" implemented? >>> How is care "rationed"? What have you NOT been given (by way of care) >>> that you feel you ought to have? >>> >>> I.e., if you were starting from scratch to reinvent YOUR system, what >>> would you change? >> >> From most aspects, the Australian system would be hard to improve on. >> >> We don't suffer the American problem of too much lawyering, so costs >> are not exorbitant, and basically if you need treatment, you get it. >> Sooner if you have private cover, but you still get treated. > >Another load of applesauce. Our legal system has nothing to do with the >cost of healthcare in the US. Utter bullshit.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | tabbypurr@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-15 13:24 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <35a8b5cf-7669-4462-9178-0d54f8311efd@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #460188 |
On Sunday, 14 May 2017 04:53:51 UTC+1, rickman wrote: > On 5/13/2017 11:33 PM, Clifford Heath wrote: > > From most aspects, the Australian system would be hard to improve on. > > > > We don't suffer the American problem of too much lawyering, so costs > > are not exorbitant, and basically if you need treatment, you get it. > > Sooner if you have private cover, but you still get treated. > > Another load of applesauce. Our legal system has nothing to do with the > cost of healthcare in the US. Why then are so many drugs more than an order of magnitude more expensive in the US than elsewhere? NT
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | krw@notreal.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-15 20:39 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <ugikhclusdr0f0c0ma45f80unf8ijfjhs6@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #460425 |
On Mon, 15 May 2017 13:24:41 -0700 (PDT), tabbypurr@gmail.com wrote: >On Sunday, 14 May 2017 04:53:51 UTC+1, rickman wrote: >> On 5/13/2017 11:33 PM, Clifford Heath wrote: > >> > From most aspects, the Australian system would be hard to improve on. >> > >> > We don't suffer the American problem of too much lawyering, so costs >> > are not exorbitant, and basically if you need treatment, you get it. >> > Sooner if you have private cover, but you still get treated. >> >> Another load of applesauce. Our legal system has nothing to do with the >> cost of healthcare in the US. > >Why then are so many drugs more than an order of magnitude more expensive in the US than elsewhere? They aren't.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | bill.sloman@ieee.org |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-15 19:16 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <ea4ea100-8497-4258-939e-9420dd699e18@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #460425 |
On Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 6:24:45 AM UTC+10, tabb...@gmail.com wrote: > On Sunday, 14 May 2017 04:53:51 UTC+1, rickman wrote: > > On 5/13/2017 11:33 PM, Clifford Heath wrote: > > > > From most aspects, the Australian system would be hard to improve on. > > > > > > We don't suffer the American problem of too much lawyering, so costs > > > are not exorbitant, and basically if you need treatment, you get it. > > > Sooner if you have private cover, but you still get treated. > > > > Another load of applesauce. Our legal system has nothing to do with the > > cost of healthcare in the US. > > Why then are so many drugs more than an order of magnitude more expensive in the US than elsewhere? That's got very little to do with the legal system, and everything to do with US big pharma lobbying the legislators to get competition banned from the system, or to have it work in ways that discourages small suppliers to break in. http://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2467992 Medicare's drug price negotiations are crippled. https://www.businessinsider.com.au/companies-that-would-be-impacted-by-medicare-negotiating-drug-prices-2017-3?r=US&IR=T It's an interesting insight into the way American business exploits the - notionally - free market. Adam Smith nailed it in 1776. http://www.goodreads.com/quotes/420123-people-of-the-same-trade-seldom-meet-together-even-for -- Bill Sloman, Sydney
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | tabbypurr@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-16 09:29 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <73fa11e8-f4a0-41fa-a572-f2113e325b63@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #460462 |
On Tuesday, 16 May 2017 03:16:34 UTC+1, bill....@ieee.org wrote: > On Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 6:24:45 AM UTC+10, tabby wrote: > > On Sunday, 14 May 2017 04:53:51 UTC+1, rickman wrote: > > > On 5/13/2017 11:33 PM, Clifford Heath wrote: > > > > > > From most aspects, the Australian system would be hard to improve on. > > > > > > > > We don't suffer the American problem of too much lawyering, so costs > > > > are not exorbitant, and basically if you need treatment, you get it. > > > > Sooner if you have private cover, but you still get treated. > > > > > > Another load of applesauce. Our legal system has nothing to do with the > > > cost of healthcare in the US. > > > > Why then are so many drugs more than an order of magnitude more expensive in the US than elsewhere? > > That's got very little to do with the legal system, and everything to do with US big pharma lobbying the legislators to get competition banned from the system, or to have it work in ways that discourages small suppliers to break in. so it's the legal system in both cases there NT
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-17 18:58 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <ofikdd$n3r$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #460528 |
On 5/16/2017 12:29 PM, tabbypurr@gmail.com wrote: > On Tuesday, 16 May 2017 03:16:34 UTC+1, bill....@ieee.org wrote: >> On Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 6:24:45 AM UTC+10, tabby wrote: >>> On Sunday, 14 May 2017 04:53:51 UTC+1, rickman wrote: >>>> On 5/13/2017 11:33 PM, Clifford Heath wrote: >>> >>>>> From most aspects, the Australian system would be hard to improve on. >>>>> >>>>> We don't suffer the American problem of too much lawyering, so costs >>>>> are not exorbitant, and basically if you need treatment, you get it. >>>>> Sooner if you have private cover, but you still get treated. >>>> >>>> Another load of applesauce. Our legal system has nothing to do with the >>>> cost of healthcare in the US. >>> >>> Why then are so many drugs more than an order of magnitude more expensive in the US than elsewhere? >> >> That's got very little to do with the legal system, and everything to do with US big pharma lobbying the legislators to get competition banned from the system, or to have it work in ways that discourages small suppliers to break in. > > so it's the legal system in both cases there Applesauce. Drugs are high here for the same reason any price is set... supply and demand. Simple economics. They charge a price that gets them the most profit. A friend has retina problems. He gets a shot each month in each eye with the hope of improving his vision, or at least it not getting worse. He had two choices, one drug which was developed for this at a very high price tag (which was paid when it was the only choice) or an off-label use of a cancer drug which is "only" $200 a shot (same results in clinical trials). The point is until the off-label drug was found, everyone paid what ever the ridiculously high cost the other drug maker charged because eye sight is very important. In other countries the same drug may well have gone for less because it might not have been paid for by the NHS, etc. In the US, once it was approved the insurance companies didn't have a choice to refuse paying. -- Rick C
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | bill.sloman@ieee.org |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-13 21:04 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <eed088ba-9bb3-49c1-aaaa-d0ca74748143@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #460183 |
On Sunday, May 14, 2017 at 1:33:54 PM UTC+10, Clifford Heath wrote: > On 14/05/17 08:10, Don Y wrote: > > So, for the folks who live/work in places with "national health care" > > (whatever THAT means), what's *wrong* with it? I.e., what would you > > wish was different/better? How are your "death panels" implemented? > > How is care "rationed"? What have you NOT been given (by way of care) > > that you feel you ought to have? > > > > I.e., if you were starting from scratch to reinvent YOUR system, what > > would you change? > > From most aspects, the Australian system would be hard to improve on. > > We don't suffer the American problem of too much lawyering, so costs > are not exorbitant, and basically if you need treatment, you get it. > Sooner if you have private cover, but you still get treated. I've been treated by the UK system, which mostly cost me nothing (beyond the national insurance levy), though on occasions I used money to get attention that the national health service was slow to provide. I used the Dutch system from time to time - it eventually replaced my aortic valve - and it never cost me anything (beyond the compulsory contribution to a health care insurer that I was allowed to choose, though they were all pretty similar). My encounters with the Australian health care system do seem to involve me paying people money pretty frequently. A recent news article suggests that the amount I'm paying could be negotiable - my GP could probably find me cheaper specialists, if that's what I asked her to do, rather than to find me the specialists least likely to screw up. http://www.smh.com.au/national/health/how-much-does-your-surgeon-charge-medibank-data-show The Australian system isn't great. Better than the US system, but clearly influenced by it, and by the less attractive feature of UK medical care. -- Bill Sloman, Sydney
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | krw@notreal.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-14 00:10 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <h1mfhc9shdsrm0ihgdtfikfjjdf46bhs5c@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #460183 |
On Sun, 14 May 2017 13:33:49 +1000, Clifford Heath <clifford.heath@gmail.com> wrote: >On 14/05/17 08:10, Don Y wrote: >> So, for the folks who live/work in places with "national health care" >> (whatever THAT means), what's *wrong* with it? I.e., what would you >> wish was different/better? How are your "death panels" implemented? >> How is care "rationed"? What have you NOT been given (by way of care) >> that you feel you ought to have? >> >> I.e., if you were starting from scratch to reinvent YOUR system, what >> would you change? > > From most aspects, the Australian system would be hard to improve on. > >We don't suffer the American problem of too much lawyering, so costs >are not exorbitant, and basically if you need treatment, you get it. >Sooner if you have private cover, but you still get treated. The lawyer problem is wholly the result of the government. It could easily be fixed if there weren't so much money involved. More reasons for *less* government. Healthcare isn't a lot different.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Clifford Heath <clifford.heath@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-14 14:29 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <w2RRA.117558$ef.52306@fx34.iad> |
| In reply to | #460191 |
On 14/05/17 14:10, krw@notreal.com wrote: > On Sun, 14 May 2017 13:33:49 +1000, Clifford Heath > <clifford.heath@gmail.com> wrote: > >> On 14/05/17 08:10, Don Y wrote: >>> So, for the folks who live/work in places with "national health care" >>> (whatever THAT means), what's *wrong* with it? I.e., what would you >>> wish was different/better? How are your "death panels" implemented? >>> How is care "rationed"? What have you NOT been given (by way of care) >>> that you feel you ought to have? >>> >>> I.e., if you were starting from scratch to reinvent YOUR system, what >>> would you change? >> >> From most aspects, the Australian system would be hard to improve on. >> >> We don't suffer the American problem of too much lawyering, so costs >> are not exorbitant, and basically if you need treatment, you get it. >> Sooner if you have private cover, but you still get treated. > > The lawyer problem is wholly the result of the government. It could > easily be fixed if there weren't so much money involved. More reasons > for *less* government. Healthcare isn't a lot different. As an outside observer, it seems that for many decades at least, the US approach has been that whenever anything bad happens to you, your primary moral responsibility has been to find someone to blame for it and drag them through the courts to make them pay. In the process, everyone but the lawyers become poor, and because they now have all the money from both sides, they're keen to do it again. The insurance companies are happy to pay, because that justifies them increasing their premiums, and wasting a bigger share of the GDP. Your medical system has become piggy-in-the-middle, played by both sides for all they're worth. That behaviour is *not* the fault of too much government. It's the result of an almost complete lack of principles, and a legal system that's driven by money.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-14 00:48 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <of8nbu$nrs$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #460196 |
On 5/14/2017 12:29 AM, Clifford Heath wrote: > On 14/05/17 14:10, krw@notreal.com wrote: >> On Sun, 14 May 2017 13:33:49 +1000, Clifford Heath >> <clifford.heath@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> On 14/05/17 08:10, Don Y wrote: >>>> So, for the folks who live/work in places with "national health care" >>>> (whatever THAT means), what's *wrong* with it? I.e., what would you >>>> wish was different/better? How are your "death panels" implemented? >>>> How is care "rationed"? What have you NOT been given (by way of care) >>>> that you feel you ought to have? >>>> >>>> I.e., if you were starting from scratch to reinvent YOUR system, what >>>> would you change? >>> >>> From most aspects, the Australian system would be hard to improve on. >>> >>> We don't suffer the American problem of too much lawyering, so costs >>> are not exorbitant, and basically if you need treatment, you get it. >>> Sooner if you have private cover, but you still get treated. >> >> The lawyer problem is wholly the result of the government. It could >> easily be fixed if there weren't so much money involved. More reasons >> for *less* government. Healthcare isn't a lot different. > > As an outside observer, it seems that for many decades at least, the > US approach has been that whenever anything bad happens to you, your > primary moral responsibility has been to find someone to blame for > it and drag them through the courts to make them pay. In the process, > everyone but the lawyers become poor, and because they now have all > the money from both sides, they're keen to do it again. The insurance > companies are happy to pay, because that justifies them increasing > their premiums, and wasting a bigger share of the GDP. Your medical > system has become piggy-in-the-middle, played by both sides for all > they're worth. > > That behaviour is *not* the fault of too much government. It's the > result of an almost complete lack of principles, and a legal system > that's driven by money. All this from a distant view through the eyes of who exactly? The media no doubt. Not surprising. Many in this country have the same sort of malformed opinion not based on any real facts, just parroting the sensational fictional accounts they've read. I will say your little exposé is pretty amazing in how far you have swallowed the hook. You even write your own prose to describe something you seem to know little about. I especially like how you absurdly claim the insurance companies stop competing to keep their rates low and instead "are happy to pay" to get their rates as high as possible. What tripe! What an almost complete lack of principles! -- Rick C
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Phil Allison <pallison49@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-14 00:13 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <6617472c-4d48-4c93-83c5-604f4057c55c@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #460196 |
Clifford Heath wrote: --------------------- > > > As an outside observer, > ** You mean as an ill informed one too. > the > US approach has been that whenever anything bad happens to you, your > primary moral responsibility has been to find someone to blame for > it and drag them through the courts to make them pay. > ** Typical mad idea derived from bad TV shows and biased new items coming from the USA. US law relating to compensation for bodily harm arising from another's negligence differs from other countries in one important respect - the injured party does not have to pay the respondent's costs if they fail to prove their case. This make it *possible* for a poor person to sue for compensation, long as they can find a lawyer willing to work on contingency - famously 33% of an awarded amount. Do you think it fair that the poor cannot sue for such compensation in places like Australia ? ..... Phil .... Phil
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | krw@notreal.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-14 18:10 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <18lhhc5kmdoedqtt9th98g8et9i224htog@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #460196 |
On Sun, 14 May 2017 14:29:13 +1000, Clifford Heath <clifford.heath@gmail.com> wrote: >On 14/05/17 14:10, krw@notreal.com wrote: >> On Sun, 14 May 2017 13:33:49 +1000, Clifford Heath >> <clifford.heath@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> On 14/05/17 08:10, Don Y wrote: >>>> So, for the folks who live/work in places with "national health care" >>>> (whatever THAT means), what's *wrong* with it? I.e., what would you >>>> wish was different/better? How are your "death panels" implemented? >>>> How is care "rationed"? What have you NOT been given (by way of care) >>>> that you feel you ought to have? >>>> >>>> I.e., if you were starting from scratch to reinvent YOUR system, what >>>> would you change? >>> >>> From most aspects, the Australian system would be hard to improve on. >>> >>> We don't suffer the American problem of too much lawyering, so costs >>> are not exorbitant, and basically if you need treatment, you get it. >>> Sooner if you have private cover, but you still get treated. >> >> The lawyer problem is wholly the result of the government. It could >> easily be fixed if there weren't so much money involved. More reasons >> for *less* government. Healthcare isn't a lot different. > >As an outside observer, it seems that for many decades at least, the >US approach has been that whenever anything bad happens to you, your >primary moral responsibility has been to find someone to blame for >it and drag them through the courts to make them pay. There is a lot to be said for the above. >In the process, >everyone but the lawyers become poor, and because they now have all >the money from both sides, they're keen to do it again. The insurance >companies are happy to pay, because that justifies them increasing >their premiums, and wasting a bigger share of the GDP. Your medical >system has become piggy-in-the-middle, played by both sides for all >they're worth. Sure, but it's not only the medical system and it's not just the direct costs of the suits. Doctors and hospitals play defensive medicine. "What can I do to minimize my chance of being sued." > >That behaviour is *not* the fault of too much government. It's the >result of an almost complete lack of principles, and a legal system >that's driven by money. Oh, it sure is. The government has set the courts up to favor the claimant and refuses to change the game.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | bitrex <bitrex@de.lete.earthlink.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-18 09:44 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <mzhTA.57642$J16.45878@fx05.iad> |
| In reply to | #460294 |
On 05/14/2017 06:10 PM, krw@notreal.com wrote: >> As an outside observer, it seems that for many decades at least, the >> US approach has been that whenever anything bad happens to you, your >> primary moral responsibility has been to find someone to blame for >> it and drag them through the courts to make them pay. > > There is a lot to be said for the above. I guarantee you this guy has sued someone over some trivial BS before. He really doesn't strike me as the "just let it go" type lol
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | krw@notreal.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-18 12:34 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <a6jrhct8i9t11ufub6ah6io4v2kjb4so23@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #460775 |
On Thu, 18 May 2017 09:44:50 -0400, bitrex <bitrex@de.lete.earthlink.net> wrote: >On 05/14/2017 06:10 PM, krw@notreal.com wrote: > >>> As an outside observer, it seems that for many decades at least, the >>> US approach has been that whenever anything bad happens to you, your >>> primary moral responsibility has been to find someone to blame for >>> it and drag them through the courts to make them pay. >> >> There is a lot to be said for the above. > >I guarantee you this guy has sued someone over some trivial BS before. >He really doesn't strike me as the "just let it go" type lol > More proof that you're an absolute zero IQ, leftist, idiot. (lot of redundancy there, I know)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | bitrex <bitrex@de.lete.earthlink.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-18 09:34 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <AphTA.74876$bl5.5824@fx25.iad> |
| In reply to | #460196 |
On 05/14/2017 12:29 AM, Clifford Heath wrote: > As an outside observer, it seems that for many decades at least, the > US approach has been that whenever anything bad happens to you, your > primary moral responsibility has been to find someone to blame for > it and drag them through the courts to make them pay. As an inside observer, the US approach is white-knighting for a giant corporation like McDonalds and using the "hot coffee injury" case as an example of how (primarily low income people) just want a payout and are always looking for someone to blame for their problems. The woman involved in that case nearly died from her injuries.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lasse Langwadt Christensen <langwadt@fonz.dk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-18 09:03 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <66e82d49-6376-43ec-a844-6825cc905c8d@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #460773 |
Den torsdag den 18. maj 2017 kl. 15.34.29 UTC+2 skrev bitrex: > On 05/14/2017 12:29 AM, Clifford Heath wrote: > > > As an outside observer, it seems that for many decades at least, the > > US approach has been that whenever anything bad happens to you, your > > primary moral responsibility has been to find someone to blame for > > it and drag them through the courts to make them pay. > > As an inside observer, the US approach is white-knighting for a giant > corporation like McDonalds and using the "hot coffee injury" case as an > example of how (primarily low income people) just want a payout and are > always looking for someone to blame for their problems. > > The woman involved in that case nearly died from her injuries. how does the extend of her injuries make it any more or less McDonalds fault? you make coffee with boiling water, unless McD has some magic machine that can make water hotter than boiling, their coffee is no hotter than any other fresh brewed coffee.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | krw@notreal.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-18 12:36 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <t9jrhc50t8nige72h09gun143aoifqfsm8@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #460792 |
On Thu, 18 May 2017 09:03:22 -0700 (PDT), Lasse Langwadt Christensen <langwadt@fonz.dk> wrote: >Den torsdag den 18. maj 2017 kl. 15.34.29 UTC+2 skrev bitrex: >> On 05/14/2017 12:29 AM, Clifford Heath wrote: >> >> > As an outside observer, it seems that for many decades at least, the >> > US approach has been that whenever anything bad happens to you, your >> > primary moral responsibility has been to find someone to blame for >> > it and drag them through the courts to make them pay. >> >> As an inside observer, the US approach is white-knighting for a giant >> corporation like McDonalds and using the "hot coffee injury" case as an >> example of how (primarily low income people) just want a payout and are >> always looking for someone to blame for their problems. >> >> The woman involved in that case nearly died from her injuries. > >how does the extend of her injuries make it any more or less McDonalds >fault? > >you make coffee with boiling water, unless McD has some magic machine >that can make water hotter than boiling, their coffee is no hotter than >any other fresh brewed coffee. In fact, at the time, Dunkin' Donuts spec for served coffee was 190F +/- 3F. Franchisees were dinged if they served coffee outside that spec.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-18 14:12 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <ofko05$4if$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #460792 |
On 5/18/2017 12:03 PM, Lasse Langwadt Christensen wrote: > Den torsdag den 18. maj 2017 kl. 15.34.29 UTC+2 skrev bitrex: >> On 05/14/2017 12:29 AM, Clifford Heath wrote: >> >>> As an outside observer, it seems that for many decades at least, the >>> US approach has been that whenever anything bad happens to you, your >>> primary moral responsibility has been to find someone to blame for >>> it and drag them through the courts to make them pay. >> >> As an inside observer, the US approach is white-knighting for a giant >> corporation like McDonalds and using the "hot coffee injury" case as an >> example of how (primarily low income people) just want a payout and are >> always looking for someone to blame for their problems. >> >> The woman involved in that case nearly died from her injuries. > > how does the extend of her injuries make it any more or less McDonalds > fault? > > you make coffee with boiling water, unless McD has some magic machine > that can make water hotter than boiling, their coffee is no hotter than > any other fresh brewed coffee. Your comments show you know nothing about the facts in the case. There is a saying about this, "Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt." -- Rick C
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 9 of 14 — ← Prev page 1 … 7 8 [9] 10 11 … 14 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.electronics.design
csiph-web