Why are foreigners who have never set foot in the US obsessed with how much and how we spend and how we spend our bucks on our excellent health care?

Make credence recognised that on Mon, 13 Aug 2007 15:26:07 GMT,
(John Kulp) has scripted:

On Mon, 13 Aug 2007 11:27:15 GMT, "William Black"
wrote:


It's all getting a bit tedious TBO.

I noticed.

I'll give '**** for brains' one last chance and than that's it...

Gee, yet another chance to show everyone what a complete idiot you
are. What fun. As if you control anything.

Haven't you noticed that everyone here thinks you're an idiot?
--
---
DFM - http://www.deepfriedmars.com
---
--

On Mon, 13 Aug 2007 19:28:58 +0200, Doesn't Frequently Mop
wrote:

Make credence recognised that on Mon, 13 Aug 2007 15:26:07 GMT,
(John Kulp) has scripted:

On Mon, 13 Aug 2007 11:27:15 GMT, "William Black"
wrote:


It's all getting a bit tedious TBO.

I noticed.

I'll give '**** for brains' one last chance and than that's it...

Gee, yet another chance to show everyone what a complete idiot you
are. What fun. As if you control anything.

Haven't you noticed that everyone here thinks you're an idiot?

For some reason, I simply don't care what morons like you think.
You're a bunch of ignorant lying libellers. If you don't like being
called on this erroneous, ignorant and simplistic crap you post you
could always try stopping it. You might even try discussing real
issues instead of the load of crap you babble. Refuted even by the
BBC.

Make credence recognised that on Mon, 13 Aug 2007 15:25:03 GMT,
(John Kulp) has scripted:

On Mon, 13 Aug 2007 11:26:37 GMT, "William Black"
wrote:


It always does for those that post nonsense and refuse to listen to
the facts. Published by no less an authority than the BBC

Interesting how the BBC comes and goes as an acceptable authority these
days...

With you, it obviously varies according to whether they publish
something that supports something you said. Other than that, you
apparently think it is rubbish. So, go ahead, show us sources that
contradict what they said. As if you could.

He never questioned it, did he?

Look idiot...

I'll try just once more.

You must accept that the USA has a lower life expectancy and higher infant
mortality than the UK.

Gee, I didn't know a country had a life expectancy and infant
mortality. I always thought that was people that had those. I have
already explained to you the causes for this which have little to do
with whether medical coverage is universal or not, which was the
discussion you like to twist around. Anymore than the cancer survival
rate in the UK in the NHS does. You only aim is obviously to libel
the US medical system trying to pretend that some socialized one is
better. So, explain to us those lousy survival rates again that the
BBC published. Along with a lot of other problems that is has in t he
past if you do a search on the BBC site.

And, I never denied that our rates in this area wasn't worse. They
are, but for reasons other than you babble about.

Damned if you've explained that part with a BBC article!
--
---
DFM - http://www.deepfriedmars.com
---
--

Make credence recognised that on Mon, 13 Aug 2007 08:59:49 GMT,
(John Kulp) has scripted:

On Mon, 13 Aug 2007 08:16:24 +0200, Doesn't Frequently Mop
wrote:

Make credence recognised that on Sun, 12 Aug 2007 22:38:41 GMT,
(John Kulp) has scripted:

I haven't had a single drink in about 2 weeks,

So what's your excuse for being so incoherent and agitated?

I'm neither. Just refuting fools posting complete nonsense like
yourselves. Won't do you any good, of course, but intelligent people
that can read and use browsers will have no problem.

We don't.
--
---
DFM - http://www.deepfriedmars.com
---
--

On Mon, 13 Aug 2007 19:35:45 +0200, Doesn't Frequently Mop
wrote:

Make credence recognised that on Mon, 13 Aug 2007 15:25:03 GMT,
(John Kulp) has scripted:

On Mon, 13 Aug 2007 11:26:37 GMT, "William Black"
wrote:


It always does for those that post nonsense and refuse to listen to
the facts. Published by no less an authority than the BBC

Interesting how the BBC comes and goes as an acceptable authority these
days...

With you, it obviously varies according to whether they publish
something that supports something you said. Other than that, you
apparently think it is rubbish. So, go ahead, show us sources that
contradict what they said. As if you could.

He never questioned it, did he?

What would you call him calling the original poster that put it up a
kook? A recommendation? And what would you call his recent mumbling
above about the BBC as a source? Another recommendation?



And, I never denied that our rates in this area wasn't worse. They
are, but for reasons other than you babble about.

Damned if you've explained that part with a BBC article!

If you could read and comprehend, you would know that this was already
discussed and explained and I even posted a Washington Post article
earlier that explained how bias is a major factor. I never said the
BBC article had anything to do with this issue. This is just more
changing the issue by you, Blacko, the guy who thinks heat stops and
the French border, etc. when faced with the very real problems and
issues with their own systems that they were trying to portray as
great solutions while libelling ours. All out of complete ignorance,
of course. This only shows that fools rarely differ.

On Mon, 13 Aug 2007 19:36:35 +0200, Doesn't Frequently Mop
wrote:

Make credence recognised that on Mon, 13 Aug 2007 08:59:49 GMT,
(John Kulp) has scripted:

On Mon, 13 Aug 2007 08:16:24 +0200, Doesn't Frequently Mop
wrote:

Make credence recognised that on Sun, 12 Aug 2007 22:38:41 GMT,
(John Kulp) has scripted:

I haven't had a single drink in about 2 weeks,

So what's your excuse for being so incoherent and agitated?

I'm neither. Just refuting fools posting complete nonsense like
yourselves. Won't do you any good, of course, but intelligent people
that can read and use browsers will have no problem.

We don't.

Talk about delusions of grandeur.

"John Kulp" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 13 Aug 2007 11:26:37 GMT, "William Black"
wrote:


You must accept that the USA has a lower life expectancy and higher infant
mortality than the UK.

Gee, I didn't know a country had a life expectancy and infant
mortality.

Wow, a grammar flame.

That's a first...

He's getting rather shrill isn't he...

--
William Black


I've seen things you people wouldn't believe.
Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland
I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate
All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach
Time for tea.

On Mon, 13 Aug 2007 18:16:09 GMT, "William Black"
wrote:


"John Kulp" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 13 Aug 2007 11:26:37 GMT, "William Black"
wrote:


You must accept that the USA has a lower life expectancy and higher infant
mortality than the UK.

Gee, I didn't know a country had a life expectancy and infant
mortality.

Wow, a grammar flame.

That's a first...

He's getting rather shrill isn't he...

Notice you didn't answer anything little man

On Sun, 12 Aug 2007 14:27:02 GMT, (John Kulp)
wrote:

On Sun, 12 Aug 2007 12:27:30 GMT, grant kinsley
wrote:



Why would I? I never said that the US does everything, just that it
does a great deal of it that the entire rest of the world benefits
from. Can't you read? And did you also notice from this list that
lots of this was done years ago and not today? Or did that fly right
by you? Did you also bother to check to see how many of those drug
companies listed here do great amounts of their research in the US?
Try virtually all of them. Just drive around New Jersey and see for
yourself.

actually you claimed thge U.S. does 90%, which is patently untrue, the
U.S. benefits from other countries research as much or more than it
contributes.


Actually, I did not say that. I said that NOW 90% of pharmaceutical
inventions were done in the US--not 1920, not overall, not anything
else. Those were the numbers that were reported publicly a couple of
years ago. Show that it's patently untrue if you can. Show anywhere
where we benefit from other countries' research as much or more than
we contribute.

Irt's patently untrue, the fact that 4 of the biggest 5 drug companies
are non-american and do their research in swiss, french and german
labs is all it takes.

your rabid nationalism does little to promote your arguments. The U.S
benefits as much as it contributes, and no amount of whinbing on your
part changes that.

GK

On Aug 12, 6:22 pm, (John Kulp) wrote:
On Sun, 12 Aug 2007 23:44:38 +0200, Doesn't Frequently Mop
-snip-t
with naming 10 new major drugs that have been produced in Europe or
Canada within the last decade or so.

"10 new major drugs"???

What on earth could that mean? Just how can anyone measure by what's
"major"?

Uh, you could start with sales. The major ones sell the most

Then why didn't you say that?

You're right. I should have. You need everything babyfed to you to
comprehend anything.

snicker As in "it's her fault she didn't know what you're
thinking". Nah, that one won't work. She's right. You should have.