From: jmfbahciv on 15 Nov 2006 08:46 In article <4559CA33.C4F05D8B(a)hotmail.com>, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > >> "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: >> >> >$30 a month is massively expensive for USENET. >> >> I don't think so. The service provided was 7x24, never down >> and the people knew what was going whenever something odd >> was happening. When I said I got what I paid for, I meant >> that the service was superb, timely, and absent of all bullshit. > >I pay $2.95 for news access and it seems just fine too. 24/7 is the norm. When I bought the service DOS 6.0 and Win 3.11 was the usual ISP software run. These guys were running Unix on Alphas. If there was a glitch on my end, I could call their help line, ask the guy if the systems were up. He would yell across his office wall if there were any problems and get an immediate answer. There wree no 500-Q&A sales mazes to go through before getting my question answered. That was worth $30/month for not spending my time on bullshit. /BAH
From: jmfbahciv on 15 Nov 2006 08:49 In article <4559C9DC.3A55227D(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: >> >> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> >How much do you pay for your dial-up connection ? >> >> >> >> I have two. For the newsgroup access, I used to pay $30/month. >> >> I definitely got what I paid for. >> >> >> >> Then it got bought out and the priced was reduced; as a result, >> >> I also got what I paid for :-((. >> > >> >Over here you can get an ADSL connection for ?12.99 a month. >> >> I can get connection for $5/month if I wish a lack of service. > >What do you mean by 'lack of service' ? > >Is this more negative thinkiong ? No. I'm quite fussy since I was in the computer biz. If there's problem, I'd like to be able to analyze and produce are reason for the problem within 10 minutes. I can't do that if I have to go through the usual help desk sales menu before dealing with the problem. I also want to talk with somebody who can touch the computer systems rather than a desk in India. /BAH
From: Eeyore on 15 Nov 2006 09:05 Jonathan Kirwan wrote: > My own brother, some years back, was almost refused care at a full > care hospital, Meridian Park, just off of the Nyberg Rd exit of I5, > south of Portland and Tigard. It was an emergency case, he'd > swallowed broken glass and was in severe pain at the time. But he had > no insurance and those at the desk simply refused to let him talk to a > doctor about it. It was only because there was an attorney in the > waiting room, who stood up and shouted at the receptionist that he > would personally bring suit against them unless they helped my brother > see a doctor right away, that they capitulated and let him speak to a > doctor. When I got down there (I hadn't been called until after that > event), the doctor told me that if it had been as little as just two > more hours, my brother would certainly have been dead. They got to > him in time, though. But not easily. That's shocking. Graham
From: Eeyore on 15 Nov 2006 09:07 Jonathan Kirwan wrote: > Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > >Don Bowey wrote: > >> "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > >> > T Wake wrote: > >> >> "Don Bowey" <dbowey(a)comcast.net> wrote in message > >> >>> "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: > >> >>>> > >> >>>> What if the 20 year old person trying to live on > >> >>>> minimum wage needs health care. How can s/he afford it? > >> >>>> > >> >>> > >> >>> Many doctors will write off the cost of care for people who cannot afford > >> >>> to > >> >>> pay, and start them off with free "samples" of meds. It's rare to hear of > >> >>> someone who is refused the help of a doctor. On the other-hand, a Dr. > >> >>> doesn't have to accept a patient who is abusive or has a known habit of > >> >>> lieing to the Dr. > >> >> > >> >> Fair one, but the system still relies on doctors treating people "out of the > >> >> goodness of their hearts." > >> > > >> > This used to happen in the UK too before the NHS. It wasn't considered to be a > >> > very satisfactory arrangement. > >> > > >> > Graham > >> > >> Not satisfactory to whom? Screw them. > >> > >> If it satisfies the doctor's wish to make someone well, that's enough. > > > >Heck, all credit to the doctors of the day but it meant that ppl were reluctant to > >seek treatment if they were poor. > > On your last part of your response, I'll add this: > > Most of my life, I have been uninsured -- meaning, self-insured. I > wasn't particularly poor during that time, but I definitely would > weigh whether or not to take my own children to the doctor, wondering > and balancing the risks and costs. > > The fault of any mistakes I made over those years are entirely mine, > of course, but I don't believe that the health care of children should > be put to such questions, at all. Parents should not be asking > themselves the questions I asked myself. I don't think there is any > excuse at all for the fact that the US doesn't provide a baseline of > health care for all children, regardless of means. > > Our society is better than that, I think. You would hope so wouldn't you ? Yet there are posters here saying it shouldn't be done because it's 'socialist'. Graham
From: Eeyore on 15 Nov 2006 09:13
Ben Newsam wrote: > On Tue, 14 Nov 2006 19:15:43 -0600, unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> > wrote: > > >I earned very well because I was paid what my > >work was worth. > > The problem is, supposing you weren't? What would you do then? Those who are fortunate like that very often forget those who aren't. Graham |