From: T Wake on 15 Nov 2006 12:34 <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote in message news:Gxv6h.6396$Sw1.2465(a)newssvr13.news.prodigy.com... > > "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote in message > news:ZaudnYkFPY6sgsfYRVnyjg(a)pipex.net... >> >> "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message >> news:4559D87C.A071FB9D(a)hotmail.com... >>> >>> >>> Sorcerer wrote: >>> >>>> The NHS is the world's worst bureaucracy >>>> and the most expensive waster of human resources imaginable. >>> >>> Not needed to use it yet ? The economy of the NHS is a proven fact. >> >> Androcles/sorcerer just says argumentative things for the hell of it, he >> very rarely has more than 1/10th of a clue what he is talking about. Wait >> till you get him started on Einstein. > > > I've only come across his abrasiveness a couple of times when flame wars > are cross-posted to the groups I normally read. I have to agree. > > However, I'd like to understand his perspective on this issue. Is he UK > or US (or elsewhere)? UK based (sadly).
From: T Wake on 15 Nov 2006 12:35 <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message news:ejf35v$8ss_016(a)s792.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... > In article <4559DEF1.515D054F(a)hotmail.com>, > Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> >> >>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: >>> >> >>> >>>So, the insurance based model is broken is it not ? >>> >> >>> >> It is now since the HMOs have become the preferred payers. >>> > >>> >An NHS would cure that. >>> >>> No, it would not. What Hillary was planning was a worse case. >> >>She wasn't planning a proper NHS though AIUI. > > Then will you try to get my point? Whatever the Dems do manage > to get through will be an awful, non-working mess. You keep > insisting that an NHS will work in the US. It will not because > yours (assuming it does function) will not be a template for > anything the US Congress will pass. Why are you deliberately misreading our posts? >> >> >>> I suppose, us USAians could join your NHS and go to your doctors >>> for service. >> >>For $2291 per head p.a. why not ? The air fares would be expensive though. >> >> >>> Perhaps you would then learn some of the problems >>> of having to service too many people with finite resources. >> >>We know all about having to do that ! The NHS is expert at it. > > I don't think you do know all about it. Wait until there's > a global epidemic and then you'll find out where all the > bugs are. Yes, private health care has shown to be so effective at combating global epidemics, hasn't it?
From: krw on 15 Nov 2006 12:37 In article <455B4037.D1FB0BEF(a)hotmail.com>, rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com says... > > > krw wrote: > > > rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com says... > > > > > What does a phone line cost btw ? > > > > When I got rid of them they were about $48/mo each. > > That's very expensive. Does that include any calls ? It's been at least three years since I canceled the last POTS line, so I may be a little off. The tariff went something like: $28/mo basic service $.022 per minute 6AM to 9PM $.005 per minute 9PM to 6AM $10 per minute charges calls forgiven $18 max on per minute charges Plus taxes, fees, Spanish-American war debt... The per minute fees were maxed every month. -- Keith
From: lucasea on 15 Nov 2006 12:37 "Don Bowey" <dbowey(a)comcast.net> wrote in message news:C18089AF.4CCBB%dbowey(a)comcast.net... > On 11/15/06 8:13 AM, in article > 81H6h.25553$TV3.11128(a)newssvr21.news.prodigy.com, "lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net" > <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: > >> >> <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message >> news:ejf204$8ss_011(a)s792.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... >>> In article <9f122$4559e15e$49ecf8a$7613(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, >>> unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: >>>> jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >>> <snip> >>> >>>> (Compare lucas electrical systems in Brit cars.) >>>> >>> Ouchy, ouchy. >> >> Yes, I have a 1970 MGB. I curse my namesake on a weekly basis. > > Be nice now. The whole idea is to work on them all week and go motoring > on > the weekend. Accept that and all will be right with the world. Mostly. > Sometimes. Yep, that's about what I do. It's just annoying when I get 5 miles from my house, and the carb float sticks open (couldn't figure out why it was peeing gasoline all over the ground.) Learned to carry a minimal toolkit with me from that weekend on.... Or when the clutch sticks, half-unengaged. Tools wouldn't have helped that, I just needed to replace the slave. Or when my water pump seal decided to let go one night on the way home from work, dumping the entire cooling system contents on the road. In fairness, though, few of my serious problems have been electrical, and all have been fixable. A British coworker told me one time that his opinion of Lucas electricals is that they weren't designed for salt exposure, and the real problems come from the junction corrosion that happens when one of those cars finds it's way to a snowy country like the US. > I have three, the oldest of which is a 50 MGTD. Nice! That's about the vintage of the TD on "All Creatures", no? > The newest is 1979, and > it's waiting for a new home; I hope someone in the club wants a > rebuildable > freebe. Sadly, I'm a bit of a snob. No rubber bumpers for me, thanks (and preferrably, no pollution control, although mine has the exhaust pump and evaporation cannister.) > I heard the Brits learned to like warm beer, because Lucas also makes > refrigerators. Hadn't heard that one--I'll have to remember it. Eric Lucas
From: T Wake on 15 Nov 2006 12:40
<jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message news:ejf3be$8ss_017(a)s792.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... > In article <eaWdnTKzXuAFvcfYRVnyig(a)pipex.net>, > "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: >> >><jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message >>news:ejcln7$8qk_012(a)s858.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... >>> In article <ytidnQLKcunpX8XYnZ2dnUVZ8q-dnZ2d(a)pipex.net>, >>> "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: >>>> >>>><jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message >>>>news:ej9mvv$8qk_008(a)s785.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... >>>>> In article <45574ED9.32805BEE(a)hotmail.com>, >>>>> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: >>>>>>> ><jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >> You are parroting politicians again. 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. >>>>>>> >> Now instead of concentrating on how they can't afford the most >>>>>>> >> expensive service, why not concentrate on why they cannot get >>>>>>> >> access to the usual general practioner's services. That is >>>>>>> >> the problem. And it has become exasperated by everything being >>>>>>> >> based on whether you have insurance or not. >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> >You present a strong case for the introduction of a nationalise >>>>>>> >healthcare >>>>>>> >system, where all have equal access to healthcare resources based >>>>>>> >on >>>>> medical >>>>>>> >need. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> There will not be access. That's what I'm trying to get >>>>>>> you to understand. You can have oodles of insurance but, >>>>>>> if you can't get an appt., you might as well use their >>>>>>> forms for toilet paper. >>>>>> >>>>>>So, the insurance based model is broken is it not ? >>>>> >>>>> It is now since the HMOs have become the preferred payers. >>>> >>>>An NHS would cure that. >>> >>> No, it would not. What Hillary was planning was a worse case. >> >>Two distinct sentences yet you imply an A means B relationship. >> >>An NHS _would_ solve the problem you have with HMOs. Whatever Hillary was >>planning is not relevant. > > It is relavant because that's what the US would end up with. It is still not relevant. There are two issues you are trying to conflate into one. 1. A NHS would be an improvement over the current US system. 2. Is the US capable of implementing a proper NHS? You assume the answer to 2 is "no" which you then use to try and argue against 1. If the US is not capable of running a national health service that is an entirely different matter. >> >>Please try to learn to distinguish between your political rantings and the >>reality. I am sure what Pol Pot was planning is a worse case as well but >>it >>isn't relevant. >> >>> I suppose, us USAians could join your NHS and go to your doctors >>> for service. >> >>In theory yes. >> >>Hell of a flight to get a flu jab though. > > If there isn't a distribution here, perhaps that's how some > get theirs. It may well be. >> >>> Perhaps you would then learn some of the problems >>> of having to service too many people with finite resources. >> >>You think we don't have finite resources? The UK NHS has less money per >>head >>than the US medical systems. Can you explain why ours still works better >>than yours? > > I've been trying to explain. You've kept it local. You have a small > geographic area. It is a lot easier to administer and deliver > services. Your sense of scale is seriously out of kilter. The UK NHS is smaller scale than one in the US would be, however it still leaves a big so what? Unless you think the US is incapable of administering something like this, you have to remember the US does indeed have national organisations (USPS, FBI, Military etc) which are all on much larger scales than anything in the UK. Is the US incapable of organising and administering things? |