From: Hatunen on
On 3 Aug 2006 17:42:26 -0700, "Tchiowa" <tchiowa2(a)>

>People get promotions to new jobs when they have learned the skills
>that they need for that job. And while they may not be as productive as
>someone who has been in their new job for a longer period, they are
>more productive than they were in their old job. That's why they get

I recommend reading "The Peter Principle", wherein Dr Peter
suggests that in any organization a person rises to his level of

>Rewards for effort.

I do hpe the rewards are for accomplishment. It's ridiculous to
reward effort that fails.

************* DAVE HATUNEN (hatunen(a) *************
* Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow *
* My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *
From: Jordi on

Tchiowa wrote:

Nice snip, yeah.

> Jordi wrote:
> > Tchiowa wrote:
> Why is 230 days "not excessive" while 240 days *is* "excessive"?
> Exactly where is the line drawn? Is 236 days "excessive"? 232.45168
> days?

So then why 7 days holiday is a 'right' and 21 days paid holiday is
'something you have to earn'. Where's the line?

We're in the muddy terrain of social science. No lines, no absolutes.

> The American system of work benefits (including but not limited to
> vacation) is based on what people "earn". Your rewards are directly
> related to your efforts including, yes, loyalty and time on the job. In
> Europe the benefits are considered "rights" and everyone gets them
> regardless of whether or not they have earned them.

No. There is a legal minimum on vacation (that is, 4 weeks) starting
from there you can get more depending on loyalty, achievement, and
whatever else.

And then there comes the ultimate motivation behind working: a salary
that is very likely to increase with time on the job (and not
necessarily along with productivity).

> A system that rewards efforts produces results. A system where benefits
> are not tied to efforts produces mediocrity.

What about getting paid more?

> The first time I went to Europe a couple of decades ago most of what I
> saw was fairly close to the US level of living standards. The US has
> advanced quite dramatically while Europe has not. Stagnation might be a
> good word. The level of living standards in Europe is now noticeably
> below the US.

After your first comments on quality of life I can understand why.
Thankfully there's more to that than pure income.

> And the trend is pointing to an even wider divergence.
> You can talk all day about the benefits of getting something for
> nothing. But when people get something for nothing that's what they
> produce: nothing. And eventually they get nothing for nothing. And
> that's why Socialism fails and that's why it is failing in Europe right
> now today.

Beware, the Commies are back!



From: The Reid on
Following up to Mxsmanic

>> try getting a job where professional qualifications you don't
>> have are required and see if they can tell the difference between
>> you and a professional.
>Artificial barriers to employment are not representative.

Of what? Of you not getting the job?
Professional qualifications are representative of proof of having
the skills to do the job, numbnuts.
Mike Reid
Walk-eat-photos UK "" <-- you can email us@ this site
Walk-eat-photos Spain "" <-- dontuse@ all, it's a spamtrap
From: The Reid on
Following up to Jordi

>So then why 7 days holiday is a 'right' and 21 days paid holiday is
>'something you have to earn'. Where's the line?

the line is what happens in US. Everything has to reserve
engineered to prove the US superior and Europe wrong.
Mike Reid
Walk-eat-photos UK "" <-- you can email us@ this site
Walk-eat-photos Spain "" <-- dontuse@ all, it's a spamtrap
From: Keith W on

"Tchiowa" <tchiowa2(a)> wrote in message

> >
> > 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.

>As I pointed out to TR, they are not "free". Someone is paying for
> them. And the charges for drugs and treatments are all set by the NHS.

No they arent.

The NHS has to purchase the drugs from the companies that
make them, the cost of the treatment is calculated on the
basis of the employee cost plus overhead.

These costs come out of the NHS group budget. Their
is no mark up on those costs levied by the hospital
and as a large customer the NHS can reach very good
volume purchase deals.

> They will pay the doctor for you at a rate that they have set. That's
> controlled rates. Controlled wages and prices.

Nope , Medical practises are paid fees based on a complex formula
that reimburses them based on the number of patients treated,
the nature of that treatment etc. Individual doctors are either
employees of or partners in that practise

Within hospitals doctors are employees of the health care trust
but senior consultants also work a protion of their time in
private practise

> The US tried that under
> Nixon. The runaway inflation under Carter was in part caused by Nixon's
> dumb attempt to control prices and wages.


>> 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.

Which is exactly what I do with my carrier.

>> 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.

> And if you are travelling outside the country?

> My insurance covers me around the world.

There are reciprocal agreements that cover me in most of Europe
as well as other countries such as Canada and Australia.
temporary travel/health insurance for travel elsewhere is cheap

>> 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.

> Interesting descriptions. What I'd want to point out the most is that
> you have the option of private health care. But only because you can
> afford to pay for health care twice: once in your taxes and again with
> your private insurer.
> Most people can't.

Actually they can, my private cover costs less than $300 per annum

> So what NHS has created is a
> 2-tier health care system. One for the rich or fairly well to do and a
> lower level of service for most.

Which is exactly the same as that in the US were the poor
and elderly rely on Medicare, Medicaid and charity wards
at public hospitals

Thie difference in the UK is that Everbody has access to any care they
regardless of age, pre-existing conditions or financial status and without
having to worry about the hospital accounts dept coming after them for
unpaid medical bills.

Those with no insurance have full access to the same primary health care
through the local doctors office as the rich.

In the US those without insurance can only get this by presenting
themselves at the emergency room and if they have any assets
the hospital bursars dept WILL pursue them for payment.

I recall well the terms of my company provided health insurance in the USA.

It didnt include cover for pre-existing conditions so any recurrence of the
knee problems cause in a 1969 motorcycle accident was NOT covered.

There was a lifetime cap on total costs of treatment which could be
exceeded in case of serious illness. I had a colleague who had
to declare bankruptcy after his wife got cancer and died after
several years of treatment. Her last years treatment were not covered
by the health insurance they had so he was left a widower in his
mid 50's with two teenage kids and no savings or assets except
his pension fund.

There were lots of deductibles that didnt seem to be covered and
always left you out of pocket.

No for all its faults I wouldnt support the dismantling of the NHS


----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==---- The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----