Draconian vacation policies for US slave workers
in [Europe]
|
From: JohnT on 6 Aug 2006 11:10 "Mxsmanic" <mxsmanic(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:vmfbd2po042t072u60c610f4on7d05b1n4(a)4ax.com... > 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 > records. > >> They are also generally verifiable by the issuing institution. > > What makes the issuing institution reliable? > This question is from someone who can't understand how metered electricity is charged for. JohnT
From: Keith Willshaw on 6 Aug 2006 11:52 "Tchiowa" <tchiowa2(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message news:1154834545.305768.182160(a)m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com... > > > Keith W wrote: >> "Tchiowa" <tchiowa2(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message >> news:1154650659.478476.197950(a)75g2000cwc.googlegroups.com... > >> > 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. > No the NHS provides each practise with a budget administered by the medical staff who run it. >> > 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. >> >> Irrelevant > > Very relevant. Price controls always skew the market. The market is a > powerful force. It *will* get even. > There are no price controls as there is no price. Treatment is free at the point of use. >> >> 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 > manner). > HMO's in the USA have also been sued , medical demand will always exceed supply. >> > 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. > The life expectancy staitsics for the two nations suggest otherwise. >> 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. > Not really. Hospitals must by law provide care necessary to stabilise a patients condition. This is a long way from full care. Enter a US public hospital with a severed limb and they'll stop the bleeding and dress the stump but if you have no insurance you wont get a prosthetic limb. >> 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 doesnt they are simple the major provider. >> 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 > don't). > 2) The insurance coverage when the condition first arose must cover it > (so it's covered) Not at all, insurance companies frequently dont cover inherited diseases. > 3) Many states have portability laws (I think that should be Federal > law) > Many dont >> 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. > As a user of the system I suspect I know far more about it than you. > 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? > I make no judgements about how the US system should be fixed, thats the problem that US voters must decide on > 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. > The British NHS has been functioning for 60 years. You must be using some new definition of short term. > You don't have to dismantle the NHS. Give it a couple of decades and it > will simply disinte
From: David Horne, _the_ chancellor of the royal duchy of city south and deansgate on 6 Aug 2006 12:46 Keith W <keithspam(a)kwillshaw.nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote: > "Mxsmanic" <mxsmanic(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > news:8j54d2hnnd6q7fbrqvgssp084p16dlcgbm(a)4ax.com... > > Keith W writes: > > > >> Its also bad English > > > > It is neither good nor bad English. It all depends on what the > > speaker or writer has in mind. > > > > Sigh > > This comes from somebody who teaches English. You would only know that if you read his posts though! :) Can we simply mark this down as another ill-informed Mixism? -- David Horne- http://www.davidhorne.net usenet (at) davidhorne (dot) co (dot) uk http://homepage.mac.com/davidhornecomposer http://soundjunction.org
From: Mxsmanic on 6 Aug 2006 14:28 barney2(a)cix.compulink.co.uk writes: > Its reputation is a good indication of its reliability. And upon what is that reputation based? What _credentials_ does it have? -- Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.
From: barney2 on 6 Aug 2006 14:42
In article <o5dcd2tameolc2uqlapoj5k659ru99msol(a)4ax.com>, mxsmanic(a)gmail.com (Mxsmanic) wrote: > *From:* Mxsmanic <mxsmanic(a)gmail.com> > *Date:* Sun, 06 Aug 2006 20:28:26 +0200 > > barney2(a)cix.compulink.co.uk writes: > > > Its reputation is a good indication of its reliability. > > And upon what is that reputation based? The quality of work performed by its graduates, inter alia. > What _credentials_ does it > have? In the UK, for example, universities and other credential-awarding bodies are certified by the government. I'm not sure how it works in other countries. |