Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: lucasea on 5 Nov 2006 21:45 "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote in message news:mtmdnZSYddlYm9PYnZ2dnUVZ8qadnZ2d(a)pipex.net... > > <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote in message > news:sBa3h.4970$B31.2627(a)newssvr27.news.prodigy.net... >> >> There is a certain musical instrument shop (Renaissance Workshop Co.) in >> Bradford, from which I have ordered a number of instruments and kits, >> since there is a dearth of good makers of renaissance woodwinds in the >> US. > > As a total aside, do you know of where I can get CD/MP3s of Medieval or > Renaissance woodwind music? I don't especially. My collection is mostly Baroque, and much of that through Amazon. You might contact either RWC (www.renwks.com) or EMS (www.e-m-s.com) and ask. If they don't sell CDs (I suspect they don't), I suspect they know and would only be too happy to help you out. Eric Lucas
From: krw on 5 Nov 2006 21:47 In article <6cx3h.6038$B31.423(a)newssvr27.news.prodigy.net>, lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net says... > > "krw" <krw(a)att.bizzzz> wrote in message > news:MPG.1fb7c4fb9605d7cd989a9c(a)news.individual.net... > > In article <KYd3h.4613$7F3.1151(a)newssvr14.news.prodigy.com>, > > lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net says... > >> > >> "krw" <krw(a)att.bizzzz> wrote in message > >> news:MPG.1fb72c9273625a39989a97(a)news.individual.net... > >> > In article <Fea3h.4927$B31.4835(a)newssvr27.news.prodigy.net>, > >> > lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net says... > >> >> > >> >> "krw" <krw(a)att.bizzzz> wrote in message > >> >> news:MPG.1fb683e1f860803a989a88(a)news.individual.net... > >> >> > In article <eifrsp$irb$3(a)leto.cc.emory.edu>, lparker(a)emory.edu > >> >> > says... > >> >> >> In article <eifgj0$8qk_005(a)s820.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, > >> >> >> jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > >> >> >> >In article <ZDn2h.3658$B31.603(a)newssvr27.news.prodigy.net>, > >> >> >> > <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: > >> >> > > >> >> > <big snip> > >> >> > > >> >> >> >>Nothing about income there. > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> >Pay attention to the if clause. There is paragraph that says > >> >> >> >if you don't have records, you can opt to pay your out > >> >> >> >of state purchases sales tax as a percentage of your income. > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > >> >> >> Sure, and for the IRS, you can estimate your sales tax deduction as > >> >> >> a > >> >> >> percentage of your income too. Nothing new there. > >> >> > > >> >> > IRS? "Sales tax deduction"? What drugs are you on? > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> None. I've done it the last few years. You have to itemize in order > >> >> to > >> >> take advantage of it, though. > >> > > >> > You have no income tax? Try it next year. > > ^ state > >> > >> What? Where did I say I have no income tax? > > > > The only way sales tax is deductible is if there is no state income > > tax. > > Wrong. There are state income taxes in every state in which I've lived > (six, now), and in every one, I've deducted the income tax from my Federal > tax return. You'd better start looking over your shoulder. Sales tax is *ONLY* deductible in lieu of state income tax. -- Keith
From: lucasea on 5 Nov 2006 21:53 "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message news:454E1239.B3FDC59(a)hotmail.com... > > > lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net wrote: > >> Incidentally, I think the idea of a copayment is a good one. It's really >> a >> minimal cost, but it makes the patient think twice about going to the >> doctor >> every time they have a sniffle. Some people are serious hypochondriacs, >> and >> would end up costing large amounts of money and clogging up their doctors >> with visits if there wasn't some small incentive to make sure they really >> need care before getting it. > > Over here they deal with that by employing dragons to answer the phone ! > These > days they like to know why you want to see the Doc. Yeah, it's done that way in the US sometimes, too. I like economic incentives better, when feasible, when they work, and when they don't become too onerous. Also, I just find it so much more pleasant to pay $15 than to have to go through my sob story on the phone to someone who doesn't know me from Adam. Eric Lucas
From: lucasea on 5 Nov 2006 22:04 "unsettled" <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote in message news:d2cf$454e1774$49ecf9b$23713(a)DIALUPUSA.NET... > Eeyore wrote: > >> >> unsettled wrote: >> >> >>>Eeyore wrote: >>> >>>>unsettled wrote: >>>> >>>>>Eeyore wrote: >>> >>>>>>T Wake posted that his local Tesco has it [buttermilk] btw. >>>> >>>> >>>>Tesco is a very popular UK supermarket chain btw. >>> >>>Been there, no buttermilk in the three I visited. >> >> >> http://uk.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20061028151602AAlA1dL >> Where can I get buttermilk in the uk? >> >> 14 answers >> >> Clearly not much demand here but all the larger supermarkets should have >> it. > > Clearly you missed the fact this was an example of > a larger unavailability scenario. BAHs implication, however, was that unavailability of certain items in Britain and Europe was a symptom of some backward society that couldn't make do on its own and had to fly people to other countries to get their basic needs met. It is, rather, clearly an example of "the people don't want it, so we ain't gonna stock much of it." Eric Lucas
From: lucasea on 5 Nov 2006 22:26
"unsettled" <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote in message news:32816$454e13aa$49ecf9b$23682(a)DIALUPUSA.NET... > Eeyore wrote: > >> >> unsettled wrote: >> >> >>>Eeyore wrote: >>> >>>>lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net wrote: >>>> >>>>>"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>Can you get US comprehensive ( no exclusions ) medical insurance for >>>>>>$2418 >>>>>>regardless of age or medical history ? >>>>> >>>>>Of course not. However, since his/her employer pays his/hers, all he >>>>>knows >>>>>is it's free and if we were to nationalize, it would cost him/her a >>>>>paltry >>>>>extra 4 % of his/her income. Such simple-minded thinking, along with >>>>>the >>>>>attitude "I've got mine, go find your own somewhere else" is what keeps >>>>>us >>>> >>>>>from adopting a realistic system of health care...that and the drug and >>>> >>>>>insurance lobbies, that plant such misanthropic thinking in peoples' >>>>>heads >>>>>and panders to their basest selfish emotions. >>>> >>>> >>>>I just checked out Blue Cross HMO Select ( California ). I see the cost >>>>varies >>>>according to where you live ! >>>> >>>>Visits to the Doctor still cost $25 and nothing seems to be 100% >>>>covered. >>>> >>>>Between $249 and $475 PCM for a single person of my age. Say $365 avg - >>>>that's >>>>$4380 pa ( ?2305 ) - add in uncovered costs and that's easily twice the >>>>UK NHS >>>>cost. >>>> >>>>No cover over 64 it seems ! What happens then ? >>> >>>Between age 64 and 65 the individual is forced into a program >>>negotiated with each individual state. Those vary all over the >>>place in cost. At 65 one qualifies for Medicare and can purchase >>>supplementary coverage. >> >> >> You mean when it becomes uneconomic for 'the market' to supply affordable >> healthcare, the state finally steps in ? > > We're talking about 1 single year. I have no idea why this is > done. I moved at age 64 to my retirement state and home and > in the process cut my health insurance costs by better than > half for that year. > >> Funny that ! Maybe you'd like to ponder the thinking behind it ? > > Makes no sense at all to me, that 1 yar gap. > >>>I have never signed up with an HMO. I refuse to be at the mercy >>>of a single physician's ideas, especially when that physician >>>is responsible for holding down costs and his personal income >>>is tied to his success at cost containment. I have always been >>>willing to pay for the right to seek medical advice anywhere. > >> I only looked at HMO pricing since I gather that's less expensive ( i >> don't even >> know what it stands for in fact ). I believe it's very popular. > > You get what you pay for. HMO stands for Health Maintenance > Organization. It was wrestled through Congress by Kennedy and > pals a couple of decades back. I'm not impressed with the > ideology which makes one's primary care physician responsible > for holding costs down regardless of what the patient needs. > > When I was younger and more of an idealist I thought National > Health Care and our sort of equivalent HMO were a really good > idea. Now I'm more open minded and have discovered they're not > such a good deal after all. The above could be read to imply that an HMO is a government entity. It is nothing of the sort. Many years ago, I had a friend whose family had started an HMO in Minnesota several years before the acronym was widely known. The first time she told me what her parents did, I had to say "what the hell is that?" Through those conversations, and experience over the years, I think I understand now. It is a private corporation that provides health care for its customers. It attempts to hold the costs of health care and maintenance down by making some hard decisions about who gets treated and how. The mechanism for this is that all health care decisions are made for a particular person by a single doctor that they have identified as their "primary care physician" (PCP). If the PCP decides that someone needs to see an ear, nose and throat specialist, then the PCP makes an official referral, and that person goes to see the ENT. In the absence of a referral, the person is welcome to see the ENT on their own, but will only have the visit paid for by the HMO if the PCP made the referral first. Otherwise, they're on their own to pay for the visit. HMOs tend to be fairly local in nature, and there are also "networks" of doctors that each HMO recognizes, often defined by geographic areas. If you are forced to go outside the network (for example, while travelling), you can still get health care, but usually a lower percentage of the cost of the care is paid by the HMO if that is the case. As somebody else commented, to me it is the worst of both worlds. On the one hand, they control your health decisions like a nationalized system, but on the other hand, they are a private corporation with a profit motive, and no impetus to keep the customer happy. At least a government organization has some call to answer to their constituency, or face removal. Such removal is a very slow process, so it's not much of an incentive, but at least it is there. It seems pretty clear to me that we need to control costs of health care in the US. And it seems pretty clear to me that one major aspect of that is controlling what health care is available to a person, and apply some common sense rules. For example, a 90 year old person has no business having a coronary bypass operation that should be paid for by everybody. The chance that it will not help and that person will actually never leave the hospital, instead wasting huge amounts of money while dying in the hospital, is much greater than someone who is 60. The likely cost for the 90 year old's bypass is something well north of $100,000, and they will be lucky if it extends their life expectancy by a month. I'm not saying that person should be denied that operation, but if they're going to have such an anti-common sense procedure, they should foot the bill entirely themselves. There are lots of other examples, a good one being the over-prescription of drugs to treat a speciously identifiable condition like ADD, anytime a kid acts out. We have an unbelievable epidemic of kids in this country on Ritalin--something like 10% of all kids--becaus |