From: JohnT on 6 Aug 2006 11:10
"Mxsmanic" <mxsmanic(a)gmail.com> wrote in message
> 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
>> 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.
From: Keith Willshaw on 6 Aug 2006 11:52
"Tchiowa" <tchiowa2(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message
> 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.
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.
> 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
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
>> 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)
Not at all, insurance companies frequently dont cover inherited
> 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.
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
> > 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.
> 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
From: Mxsmanic on 6 Aug 2006 14:28
> Its reputation is a good indication of its reliability.
And upon what is that reputation based? What _credentials_ does it
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
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