From: Hatunen on 5 Aug 2006 21:02
On Sun, 06 Aug 2006 02:30:20 +0200, Mxsmanic <mxsmanic(a)gmail.com>
>> Credentials are simply attestation to the qualification.
>They are assertions, not proof.
They usually are the likes of diplomas and certifications, and as
close to proof as you can get without having attended school with
the applicant. They are also generally verifiable by the issuing
************* DAVE HATUNEN (hatunen(a)cox.net) *************
* Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow *
* My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *
From: marika on 5 Aug 2006 21:40
On Sat, 05 Aug 2006 17:34:50 -0400, Hatunen <hatunen(a)cox.net> wrote:
> On Sat, 05 Aug 2006 20:56:01 GMT, marika <mcenko(a)mindspring.com>
>> i heard someone joke about giving the Iraqis our Constitution because
>> we're not using it anymore, this was funny, but cuts a little too close
> you heard that Robin Williams interview, too, eh?
actually no i didn't. or else i don't think i did. i wonder if it was
part of a concert series or something similar that might be on a cd.
a friend sent the comment to me unattributed. thanks for identifying the
> ************* DAVE HATUNEN (hatunen(a)cox.net) *************
> * Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow *
> * My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *
From: Tchiowa on 5 Aug 2006 23:22
Keith W wrote:
> "Tchiowa" <tchiowa2(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > 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
So you're saying that the NHS calculates a rate rather than has a flat
rate? Still that means the NHS is setting the rates.
> > 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.
Very relevant. Price controls always skew the market. The market is a
powerful force. It *will* get even.
> >> 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
My insurance covers me everywhere. And clearly the reciprocal
agreements aren't complete because the NHS has been sued (successfully)
several times recently to force them to pay for medical care outside
the UK (because people had to leave the UK to get treatment in a timely
> > 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
Difference being the majority of the US is in the upper tier while the
majority in the UK get the lower tier.
> Thie difference in the UK is that Everbody has access to any care they
> require regardless of age, pre-existing conditions or financial status
So does everybody in the US.
> and without
> having to worry about the hospital accounts dept coming after them for
> unpaid medical bills.
So the issue to you is not care but who pays for it. Fair enough. But
why does that mean the government has to *CONTROL* it?
> It didnt include cover for pre-existing conditions so any recurrence of the
> knee problems cause in a 1969 motorcycle accident was NOT covered.
1) Some insurance coverages do allow for pre-existing conditions (some
2) The insurance coverage when the condition first arose must cover it
(so it's covered)
3) Many states have portability laws (I think that should be Federal
> 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
I suggest you think about what it's true faults are.
The US system has its faults, no doubt. But those faults are fixable.
Look at the recent law passed in Massachusetts.
But to take the US system and say "it has faults therefore we're going
to throw it out and replace it with a Socialized Medicine system" is
like saying your house has leaky faucets so you're going to move out
and buy a mobile home. Prettier, cheaper, no leaks. Never mind that 20
or 30 years from now it will be worthless. How about just fix the leaks
in your house?
The faults in the US system can be fixed and they should be. But the
faults in the UK system *CAN NOT* be fixed. They are endemic in the
system. Socialized Medicine will always fail. It's a short term, feel
good system that will inevitably fail.
You don't have to dismantle the NHS. Give it a couple of decades and it
will simply disintegrate on its own.
I don't have worries about medical coverage for myself. I have good
insurance. So either system takes care of me just fine. But I'm worried
about my kids and grandkids and succeeding generations. I'm not willing
to sacrifice their medical care (or any other aspect of their lives) in
order for me to get something cheap today.
From: Mxsmanic on 6 Aug 2006 06:06
> They usually are the likes of diplomas and certifications, and as
> close to proof as you can get without having attended school with
> the applicant.
You can get proof by watching them perform, or by examining their work
> They are also generally verifiable by the issuing institution.
What makes the issuing institution reliable?
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.
From: barney2 on 6 Aug 2006 09:48
In article <vmfbd2po042t072u60c610f4on7d05b1n4(a)4ax.com>,
mxsmanic(a)gmail.com (Mxsmanic) wrote:
> *From:* Mxsmanic <mxsmanic(a)gmail.com>
> *Date:* Sun, 06 Aug 2006 12:06:05 +0200
> Hatunen writes:
> > They usually are the likes of diplomas and certifications, and as
> > close to proof as you can get without having attended school with
> > the applicant.
> You can get proof by watching them perform, or by examining their work
If the person is operating in a field with which you are not familiar, you
are not in a position to make an informed judgement as to their
> > They are also generally verifiable by the issuing institution.
> What makes the issuing institution reliable?
Its reputation is a good indication of its reliability.