Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: Eeyore on 11 Nov 2006 11:45 jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: > > >Lots of insurance on electrical goods is madness, and you tend to expect > >that. Cat insurance is also insane - some policies ask for in the region of > >?10 pcm per cat and wont pay for the first ?50. If you take the money and > >put it in a savings account you get the best of both worlds, as long as you > >have the emergency fund for when it needs a ?500 operation... > > > > > You would spend $500 on a cat operation? ($ is merely used to indicate > money and not type of currency). Some ppl might well do. Graham
From: Eeyore on 11 Nov 2006 11:47 jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: > ><jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message > >> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > >>>I don't think private companies are up to the task of providing critical > >>>services like this very well. > >> > >> Ours are, too. That's because the pensions are transforming > >> from a collected pot of money by the employees into an insurance > >> policy. It's no longer real money. > >> > >> The same thing happened to medical pots of money contributed > >> by employees and their employers. The pool of monies got transformed > >> to insurance companies. > > > >Which is why a state run system is "better." Part of the problem in the UK > >is our pensions got "privatised" and the providers have to turn a profit. > > There is still competition at the level of insurance companies. > Remove that and available medical care will diminish. None of > those service providers are going to work at minimum wage. Who said anything about minimum wage ? The NHS can be more cost effective because it reduces costs and inefficiency rather than wages. Graham
From: Eeyore on 11 Nov 2006 12:02 jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > What is really happening > is that people, who do not have access to a GP, go to the > most expensive health care facility for treatment. Why would they do that ? Graham
From: Eeyore on 11 Nov 2006 12:07 jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > >BAH may not be aware that it was a social conscience that drove Britain to > >look at the possibility of a National Health Service. > > Britain is a single country and has a "small" acreage. The US > is 50 "countries" span a quarter hemisphere. What's that got to do with it ? > >A society that condemns its less well-off members to poor / inadequate health > >provision is no great example to anyone. > > > >Heck, there's an American chap I chat with on MSN who simply couldn't afford > >to buy the best medicine for his wife's condition. > > You should have examined the situation a tad more closely. Was > he able to get the good medicine or was he forced to take the > generic? Did he expect to pay $12 for the best? I've run > into this attitude before and people simply don't want to > buy drugs without a massive discount. I don't understnad this > mindset yet. Which part of " couldn't afford to buy the best medicine " didn't you understand ? Graham
From: Ken Smith on 11 Nov 2006 12:42
In article <uam5h.2412$6t.1434(a)newssvr11.news.prodigy.com>, <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: [.....] [... treated wood last forever ...] >Pretty damn close, in my experience. In a really bad environment, the wood loses the chemicals in something like 25 years. In contact with just plain dirt, I'd put it near 50 years. Once the chemicals are gone, the wood starts to decay so from that point there is a little time till it needs replacing. > >Eric Lucas > > -- -- kensmith(a)rahul.net forging knowledge |