From: Dave Frightens Me on 3 Aug 2006 06:13
On Wed, 02 Aug 2006 15:51:58 +0200, Mxsmanic <mxsmanic(a)gmail.com>
>Dave Frightens Me writes:
>> On Wed, 02 Aug 2006 14:36:25 +0200, Mxsmanic <mxsmanic(a)gmail.com>
>> >Dave Frightens Me writes:
>> >> You asked "What does that make
>> >> [Doctors without Borders]?". That can only be read as the
>> >> organisation.
>> >Then why do the British refer to organizations with plural forms of
>> You should know the reason, if you teach the language.
>Yes. They do it because they are thinking of people within the
>organization. Thus, Doctors without Borders can indeed be read as
>something other than the organization, contrary to your assertion.
You said 'can indeed be' and not 'is', thus is it not demonstrated,
but merely a possibility, and an unlikely one at that.
DFM - http://www.deepfriedmars.com
From: Keith W on 3 Aug 2006 06:26
"Tchiowa" <tchiowa2(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> No, you don't. Doctors work in private practice and are reimbursed by
>> Social Security. The same is true for hospitals. There is also a
>> system of entirely public hospitals with staff physicians. You can go
>> to the public facilities for free, or you can go to private providers
>> who accept Social Security as payment in full, or you can go to
>> private providers who accept SS as partial payment and you pay the
>> rest. You can also contract for private insurance for anything that
>> Social Security does not pay. It costs a few dozen euro per month.
> Not with NHS.
> You go where you're told to doctors with controlled rates and use drugs
> with controlled prices.
Well no unless you count FREE as a controlled rate.
Under the UK NHS you register with a doctor , there are no fees for
consultations or treatment and drugs are subject to a fixed prescription
charge no matter how expensive they are. You can choose to pay a one
off fee of 6.65 or a prepaid prescrption certificate which is much cheaper.
The unemployed , retired, children, pregnant woman and low paid groups
are exempt from these prescription charges.
If you are travelling within the country and need to see another doctor
you just go into any local doctors office, fill in a short form and
see him, again no fee is charged.
You are quite at liberty to go to a fee charging private doctor and he
can prescribe drugs which are then bought at full price but for obvious
reasons few people do this.
Primary health care (access to your local GP) is actually very good
under the NHS and even those people who have private health
insurance , like myself, still use the NHS doctors at local level.
The only time I would resort to my private health cover is when
hospital admission is required and even there the surgeon
who operates on me will likely be the same one who works
in the local NHS hospital. Mostly what I get for my money
is improved hotel services in hospital, a private room instead
of a public ward etc.
As a result private health cover in the UK is essentially a topup
to the public service and is MUCH cheaper than in the USA
as I know having lived in Ohio for 3 years.
From: Jim Ley on 3 Aug 2006 06:26
On Thu, 3 Aug 2006 10:23:02 +0100, "Keith W"
>"Mxsmanic" <mxsmanic(a)gmail.com> wrote in message
>> Keith W writes:
>>> In Britain if you live in a cable tv enabled area you change
>>> the local loop provides in a day or so for nothing
>> What is the connection between cable TV and the local loop?
>If you have cable TV you use that fibre optic connection
>INSTEAD of the local loop from the traditional telecoms
Which UK cable companies have fibre to the house?
And people like homechoice already deliver TV over BT's local loop.
From: Keith W on 3 Aug 2006 06:31
"Jim Ley" <jim(a)jibbering.com> wrote in message
> On Thu, 3 Aug 2006 10:23:02 +0100, "Keith W"
> <keithspam(a)kwillshaw.nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>"Mxsmanic" <mxsmanic(a)gmail.com> wrote in message
>>> Keith W writes:
>>>> In Britain if you live in a cable tv enabled area you change
>>>> the local loop provides in a day or so for nothing
>>> What is the connection between cable TV and the local loop?
>>If you have cable TV you use that fibre optic connection
>>INSTEAD of the local loop from the traditional telecoms
> Which UK cable companies have fibre to the house?
NTL were running fibre cable to the house when I lived in London
In Cambridge they run fibre to street level and then run copper
to the house.
> And people like homechoice already deliver TV over BT's local loop.
Indeed but BT are planning to get in on the act.
From: Jordi on 3 Aug 2006 06:35
> Jordi wrote:
> > An hyperbole, we can set it at halfway through if you insist.
> Fine. Halfway through. That means people get that level of vacation for
> half their working lives.
But, if we're talking 10 years, that puts it back to after 54 years,
that's getting far, now.
How can a 4-week holiday in your 50s be a reward for productivity?
Loyalty would be a much better word.
> > So? Under 40-44 ames or 45-49 females aren't worth discussing? They
> > made up the bulk (and most productive part) of the workforce.
> Look at them all!!! I made a statement about people over a certain age
> and you want to pick select groups out of that to try to skew the
But that 'certain' age has drifted from 28 (which can be somehow
reasonable) to the 30s to 44, and now 54!
> > First you said 5, now you said 10? Which one you got wrong?
> 5 years gets 3 weeks, 10 gets 4 weeks. Go read the charts.
Great, so then there even more proof that most people in the US get
less than 4-week holiday.
> > No age group in the chart you provided (not even 50-54) has a median
> > length of job over 10 years. Check that again.
> 9.9 years????
For males, add in females and the picture is different. But anyway less
than half the males aged 50-54 are getting 4-week holiday.
> > We were commenting a BLS chart that stopped providing data at 38 years
> > of age (thus 'mature'), in a 'people start having their permanent jobs
> > at 28' discussion. Please check context.
> Nice try at ducking out of what you said.
Quoting without context is much a better example of ducking.
> You want to quibble on small variances in numbers. My point remains and
> has been demonstrated: Most people stay in their jobs long enough to
> get plenty of vacation.
When they're 50+ years old, great.
People stay longer in their jobs as they get
> older and it has nothing to do with "magic". Virtually everyone in the
> US gets paid vacation based on what they earned.
Most are getting a paltry 2-week, 4 weeks are a very rare minority.
Work is not a bad
> thing and working hard does not cause stress.
I said something like that earlier. Excessive work, OTOH, does cause