Indeed. One woman I was talking with on a pacemaker group said that she was hospitalized for three weeks waiting for an MRI. I said I had one within an hour of the doctor ordering it [*]. That three weeks hospitalization sure made a lot of sense. :-/ Somehow she was happy about it.
[*] In the hospital, not even in an MRI-in-a-box which is something that would never exist where the Nationalist Socialist Party rules, either.
The people who use the service should pay for it. What's the problem?
So you're in favor of eating sheep, too, as long as all the foxes agree.
See above.
On Wednesday, October 31, 2018 at 1:20:50 PM UTC+11, snipped-for-privacy@notreal.com wrote :
She wouldn't have been hospitalised because she was waiting for an MRI. She might have been hospitalised for other test which were being run during th at period, and she might just have hospitalised just because she was sick, and it took that long to get her stabilised.
Why not?
Krw does seem to be unaware of the fact that there two queues in any hospit al system - a short one for urgent cases, and a longer one for cases that a re less urgent.
Krw might have got his scan within an hour on account of the third - inform al - queue which is for patients that they'd like to get out of the place a s fast as possible. It doesn't have precedence over the urgent patient queu e, but it can get precedence over over less sick - but less obnoxious - pat ients.
-- Bill Sloman, Sydney
On Wednesday, October 31, 2018 at 1:25:42 PM UTC+11, snipped-for-privacy@notreal.com wrote :
passives that are hard to get these days. I've noticed that a number of p arts indicate "tariff applied". Can someone explain to me how these tariff s are helping the US be competitive when it results in our costs being high er and our profit margins being thinner? We can talk about raising prices, but when competing in markets where only we are paying tariffs all this do es it to put us at a disadvantage.
endors who are impacted even aware this is happening?
they are making it back? Seems bass ackwards somehow. But certainly it is good politics, let everyone pat him on the back for lowering taxes then sn eak in a new tax in the name of patriotism!
Raising the prices of basic services hits the poor harder than the well off . It's a regressive tax.
Bizarre image. Regressive taxes are usually seen as unfair, but well-off Am ericans do seem oddly fond of them.
Krw has not noticed that in the US the division between the rich (who do we ll out of government tax choices) and the rest (who don't) is between the t op 1% of the income distribution, whose share of the ouptut of the US econo my has been rising since Reagan came to power, and the remaining 99% whose share has been declining since then. Essentially all the increase in US eco nomic output since 1980 has gone into the pockets of the top 1% of the inco me distribution.
This probably doesn't include krw, but as long as there are people poorer t han him who are doing worse than he is, he feels secure on his perch, even if it is well below the top the pecking order.
-- Bill Sloman, Sydney
They've been retired and scrapped for many years now AFAIK. Fuel costs are such now that four engine widebody passenger aircraft in general like the 747 and A340 are mostly obsolete
Short haul 747 flights are no more, they guzzle gas like woah. By the time they get into the air it's nearly time to land, can't spend enough time at efficient cruising altitude to make up for all the revenue that got blasted out the back of the gas guzzlin' engines lumbering into the air.
The A340 in particular was disparaged by one airline CEO, perhaps it was Lufthansa, as being a "flying gas tank that carries passengers as a hobby"
Two problems with this comparison. The first is that the number of "preven tive tests" are not an all encompassing metric of medical costs. In fact i t doesn't describe costs at all.
The second is that you can't compare the costs of a system that isn't provi ding medical care for a significant proportion of the residents. In the US we have three groups of people, those with insurance who can get medical c are (about 90%), those without insurance who pay their own way (a rather sm all group including billionaires mostly) and the remaining 10% who have no insurance and so no medical care. What is the cost of THAT?
I don't think you understand medical care in the US. You are NOT free to h ave any procedure you want even if you pay for it. Doctors decide what car e you can have. What the discussion is about is how it is paid for. You s eem to be trying to make this a freedom issue when it is not.
I suspect you are pulling numbers from some anti-ACA web site. These numbe rs don't actually mean anything. No one "lost" medical care under the ACA. I do know that some companies chose to drop medical coverage for dependen ts (UPS, you know I'm talking about you), but that was because they could g et it under the ACA. So that comes down to wages. UPS decided they could cheap out and not pay for some of the costs. UPS is union, they should hav e made that a contract issue and restored insurance for families. Not real ly an ACA issue, that was a cheap bastard corporation issue.
Why do you try to argue in sound bites? Do you ever try to dig into an iss ue and understand it rather than just getting pissed off because you saw so mething inflammatory?
Rick C.
Of course you forget about those who are forced into Obamacare, who pay for insurance but who can't afford to use it.
On Thursday, November 1, 2018 at 11:30:32 AM UTC+11, snipped-for-privacy@notreal.com wrote :
:
ventive tests" are not an all encompassing metric of medical costs. In fac t it doesn't describe costs at all.
oviding medical care for a significant proportion of the residents. In the US we have three groups of people, those with insurance who can get medica l care (about 90%), those without insurance who pay their own way (a rather small group including billionaires mostly) and the remaining 10% who have no insurance and so no medical care. What is the cost of THAT?
How does that work?
-- Bill Soman, Sydney
No, you can't have used a question mark. Who are you and what did you do wi th Bill Slowman ?
We have a right to know, every conservative in the world has a right to kno w the type of people who will destroy the way of living we cherish.
From what planet did you emerge ? And as much as our opinion of Slowman is, well , what it is, we need him back to complete his trial of fortune, he h as not been dunked, burned at the stake or beheaded. Please send him back f or his "payment". We can do your duplicate right after. Trust me, I know wh at I am doing.
On Thursday, November 1, 2018 at 2:18:09 PM UTC+11, snipped-for-privacy@gmail.com wrote :
Strikes me as a legitimate question. If you've got health insurance, how ca n it be set up to make it more expensive to exploit it than to live with th e health problems it was supposed to insure you against?
with Bill Sloman ?
now the type of people who will destroy the way of living we cherish.
Since jurb is speaking for the terminally ignorant and intellectually lazy, rather than anybody who is merely conservative, he hasn't got any right to know, and he wouldn't bother making sense of an answer if anybody gave him one.
Somebody who hasn't got a clue about the way of living that he claims to ch erish hasn't got any rights at all, and he certainly hasn't got any right t o confuse the advocacy of moderate change with the advocacy of the "destruc tion" of any "way of life".
Jurb's problem seems to be that he doesn't know much, and any change would require him to learn something, which he doesn't want to do. If he knew a l ittle more, he might be able to imagine that some changes might be for the better, but he's resolute in preferring the vile circumstance he's accustom ed to to anything even slightly different - it might be potentially better, but he'd have to think about stuff to work out how, and he isn't gong to d o that.
, well , what it is, we need him back to complete his trial of fortune, he has not been dunked, burned at the stake or beheaded. Please send him back for his "payment". We can do your duplicate right after. Trust me, I know w hat I am doing.
A claim jurb has been known to make, but never all that convincingly.
-- Bill Sloman, Sydney
:
ventive tests" are not an all encompassing metric of medical costs. In fac t it doesn't describe costs at all.
oviding medical care for a significant proportion of the residents. In the US we have three groups of people, those with insurance who can get medica l care (about 90%), those without insurance who pay their own way (a rather small group including billionaires mostly) and the remaining 10% who have no insurance and so no medical care. What is the cost of THAT?
???
It's not surprising to anyone here that you're that clueless.
te:
:ote:
u oly
u spreventive tests" are not an all encompassing metric of medical costs. In fact it doesn't describe costs at all.
providing medical care for a significant proportion of the residents. In the US we have three groups of people, those with insurance who can get med ical care (about 90%), those without insurance who pay their own way (a rat her small group including billionaires mostly) and the remaining 10% who ha ve no insurance and so no medical care. What is the cost of THAT?
When krw calls other people clueless, it's because he can't explain the poi nt in question and falls back on abuse as a substitute for the explanation he hasn't - and couldn't - produce.
-- Bill Sloman, Sydney
te:
:ote:
u oly
u spreventive tests" are not an all encompassing metric of medical costs. In fact it doesn't describe costs at all.
providing medical care for a significant proportion of the residents. In the US we have three groups of people, those with insurance who can get med ical care (about 90%), those without insurance who pay their own way (a rat her small group including billionaires mostly) and the remaining 10% who ha ve no insurance and so no medical care. What is the cost of THAT?
Ah yes, the cry of the truly uninformed.
Got it.
Rick C.
On Sunday, October 28, 2018 at 11:54:32 AM UTC-4, snipped-for-privacy@gmail.com w rote:
ives that are hard to get these days. I've noticed that a number of parts indicate "tariff applied". Can someone explain to me how these tariffs are helping the US be competitive when it results in our costs being higher an d our profit margins being thinner? We can talk about raising prices, but when competing in markets where only we are paying tariffs all this does it to put us at a disadvantage.
s who are impacted even aware this is happening?
Not helping Bak usa, which was making computers here in Buffalo. They're closing because of tariffs. (tight margins)
George H.
ssives that are hard to get these days. I've noticed that a number of part s indicate "tariff applied". Can someone explain to me how these tariffs a re helping the US be competitive when it results in our costs being higher and our profit margins being thinner? We can talk about raising prices, bu t when competing in markets where only we are paying tariffs all this does it to put us at a disadvantage.
ors who are impacted even aware this is happening?
"While we are beyond proud of Bak USA?s many successes, the busines s did not reach the point of profitability necessary to sustain itself. The additional, unanticipated expenses associated with the tariffs imposed by the White House were a deciding factor in our ultimate decision to close."
They didn't close because of the tariffs. They gave up trying to make the business profitable because of the tariffs. The company was not viable by their own admission. That's rather a duh, now isn't it? That is not a bus iness a US company manufacturing in the US would likely ever be profitable in. Same for most countries. Even companies like Dell make the majority o f their products in China.
Rick C.
As always, you got nothing. It's been explained to you, in this forum, any number of times but you still can't understand. There is no point in trying to teach you anything.
e:
ote:
you
e to
only
you
not
m is
f "preventive tests" are not an all encompassing metric of medical costs. In fact it doesn't describe costs at all.
n't providing medical care for a significant proportion of the residents. In the US we have three groups of people, those with insurance who can get medical care (about 90%), those without insurance who pay their own way (a rather small group including billionaires mostly) and the remaining 10% who have no insurance and so no medical care. What is the cost of THAT?
By which he means that any number of right-wing nitwits have made the asser tion.
Krw and his ilk don't recognise any difference between making an assertion and providing an explanation.
If any explanation has ever been posted here, I can't recall seeing it, and I'll be surprised if even somebody like Jeff Lieberman - who does do expla nations and searches - could prove me wrong by finding it.
As if krw had anything to teach, except perhaps in serving as an example of right-wing non-thinking.
-- Bill Sloman, Sydney
ElectronDepot website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.