On Aug 26, 8:55*pm, wrote:
"Clot" wrote:
I suspect that the
overall impact is minute compared to actually opening the door and keeping
it unduly open!

I know.... you are right

I'm just an "optimizer" by nature and cant help myself!

But....... if there are 400 million people in the USA
and say 100 million homes.... and if we save just ONE
watt in the fridge bulb.... that is 100 million watts
saved!!

You know there is a chance, a very remote one perhaps, that
inefficient incandescent bulbs used inside a fridge (a mere convenince
any way) are a wasteful use of electricty?
After all the heat from the bulb has to pumped out of the fridge
interior to restore the temperature each time after the door has been
opened and the light has operated for a few seconds.
IF one watt per bulb could be saved some calculations
show ..................
Fridge opened say twice per hour for 12 hours per day = 24 openings.
Average length of each door open = 15 seconds.
Daily total door open and light on time = 24 x 15 seconds = 6 minutes.
Use of bulb using one watt less power
Kilowatt hours saved 1 x 6/60 (one tenth of one hour) divided by 1000
= 0.0001 kilowatt hours/day.
Per year 365 x 0.0001 = 0.0365 kilowatt hours per year.
If electricity costs 10 cents per kw.hr electrcity cost saved per year
= 0.0365 x 0.1 = one third of one cent per year.
Ah yes but we have to pump that much less heat out of the fridge, so
halve the saving?
And the light goes off, or so we are told, when the door closes?
And every time the fridge door opens cold air spills out and some
warmer air enters that has to be re-chilled.
Hey! This seems to getting rather pointless?
There MUST be other reductions in electrcity consumption that make
more sense nation wide etc. and are more effective.
For example I left the light on over the front door for over a hour
longer this morning (just forgot about it!) that probably cost me
(electrcity consumption) one half a cent; tut tut.
I suppose I could install a light sensitive fixture and have it turn
itself off. But that fixture would cost me around $15 to $20. And that
can buy a lot of relatively clean hydro powered electrcity! And such
fixtures do involve electronics that may or not be recycled safely
when the fixture breaks down which it will inevitably do?
And hydro power is pretty reliable; provided climate change doesn't
bugger up water flows.
Burning say coal doesn't make any sense at all.
Big additional hydro development in Labrador Canada (if and when it
gets off the ground, in a manner of speaking) that will be capable of
providing clean power to New England states etc.

Smitty Two wrote:

Here you go, you can buy this new fridge, equipped with freezer and
fridge LED lights, to save bundles on your electricity costs. Let us
know about the payback period.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16896140196

wotta an idiot

On Aug 27, 9:22*am, Smitty Two wrote:
In article ,
wrote:

dpb wrote:

Only for the minute fractional portion of time the bulb is actually on
which is, indeed, a quite small fraction--say 5 minutes would be
extremely high value for a day. *5min/24hr--0.35% -- your optimism
gets down to where it's only something otoo 350 kW which wouldn't even
be detectable in the overall grid.

Still tho....

It seems like a great place to use an LED lamp!!

And easy to retrofit if such an LED lamp was available!

I told ya..... I cant help myself . Ha!

Here you go, you can buy this new fridge, equipped with freezer and
fridge LED lights, to save bundles on your electricity costs. Let us
know about the payback period.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16896140196

If what I've heard about LG fridges is still true, it won't last long
enough to be anything but a net loss.

nate

David Nebenzahl wrote:

On 8/26/2009 3:06 PM Don Klipstein spake thus:

In m, David Nebenzahl
wrote:

I'm also curious what usable stuff they're able to extract from all
those bulbs. I can't imagine that anyone wants to reuse any of the
transistors, capacitors, etc., so they must get ground up and somehow
turned into feedstock for ... something.

I would think that the mercury gets recovered and everything else gets
landfilled, especially if they are using lead-free solder.

That's certainly at odds with at least the impression one gets from the
reports one sees on TV from time to time, touting how "responsible"
recyclers are now recovering the materials from such things as discarded
electronics, rather than shipping them overseas and letting 7-year-old
barefoot children pick them apart in a junkyard.

I would have thought that the electronics would get ground up and then
reclaimed, at least to some extent. Wouldn't it be just wasteful to put
all those metals back into the landfill?

Then again, maybe I was being naive.

I expect it depends on where the lamps are being recycled. There are
certainly some very sophisticated recycling operations that grind
everything up and then do an automated sort of the different component
materials.

Whether a particular lamp dropped off for recycling makes it to one of
those operations, probably depends on location. Of course most people
just dispose of the lamps in the regular garbage stream, so then it
depends on what post collection sorting operation is in place.

On that last part, yes it is naive to think that much of any of these
recycling efforts makes any real difference. Some of the stuff we have
been recycling for the longest time such as glass is a net negative
environmentally to recycle, but it makes folks who don't look at the
details feel better.

Clot wrote:

wrote:
"Clot" wrote:

I suspect that the
overall impact is minute compared to actually opening the door and
keeping it unduly open!

I know.... you are right

I'm just an "optimizer" by nature and cant help myself!

I'm the same.

But....... if there are 400 million people in the USA
and say 100 million homes.... and if we save just ONE
watt in the fridge bulb.... that is 100 million watts
saved!!

I thought it was below 300m, so a few less watts saved!

~350M I believe.

wrote:

wrote:

It gets corrupted from time to time, but in the end the market
place usually comes up with the right answer to this kind of question.

Yeah..... except healthcare

Our health care system works well, 86% of our ~350M population has
health insurance and of the remaining 14% a good number have it
available, but choose not to take it.

Our health care system is far from broken and while you can readily come
up with a few percent of the population with health care horror stories
in the US, Canada, UK, etc. and make emotional news stories out of them,
the fact is that the number is an extremely small percentage of the
population.

What US health care needs is refinement, not reform. Tighter controls on
insurance companies, more consumer protection, and a bit better method
for handling the bottom few percent of the population than the current
emergency room strategy. Doctors also need to rationalize the fact that
theirs is no longer a gold mine career path and they may need to live
with a smaller yacht and house.

Pete C. wrote:
Clot wrote:

wrote:
"Clot" wrote:

I suspect that the
overall impact is minute compared to actually opening the door and
keeping it unduly open!

I know.... you are right

I'm just an "optimizer" by nature and cant help myself!

I'm the same.

But....... if there are 400 million people in the USA
and say 100 million homes.... and if we save just ONE
watt in the fridge bulb.... that is 100 million watts
saved!!

I thought it was below 300m, so a few less watts saved!

~350M I believe.

Made me curious. 304M (July 2008) according to this:
http://www.census.gov/popest/states/...EST2008-01.xls

Pete C. wrote:
Clot wrote:

wrote:
"Clot" wrote:

I suspect that the
overall impact is minute compared to actually opening the door and
keeping it unduly open!

I know.... you are right

I'm just an "optimizer" by nature and cant help myself!

I'm the same.

But....... if there are 400 million people in the USA
and say 100 million homes.... and if we save just ONE
watt in the fridge bulb.... that is 100 million watts
saved!!

I thought it was below 300m, so a few less watts saved!

~350M I believe.

Interestingly, this came out today:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8224520.stm

I've always used the rule of thumb that the US population is five times the
UK and don't see a reason to change it!

In article ,
wrote:

Smitty Two wrote:

Here you go, you can buy this new fridge, equipped with freezer and
fridge LED lights, to save bundles on your electricity costs. Let us
know about the payback period.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16896140196

wotta an idiot

You certainly are, for obsessing about the waste of an incandescent bulb
in your fridge.

In article
,
N8N wrote:

On Aug 27, 9:22*am, Smitty Two wrote:
In article ,
wrote:



Here you go, you can buy this new fridge, equipped with freezer and
fridge LED lights, to save bundles on your electricity costs. Let us
know about the payback period.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16896140196

If what I've heard about LG fridges is still true, it won't last long
enough to be anything but a net loss.

nate

Really? You don't think it will last 4000 years?

Clot wrote:

Pete C. wrote:
Clot wrote:

wrote:
"Clot" wrote:

I suspect that the
overall impact is minute compared to actually opening the door and
keeping it unduly open!

I know.... you are right

I'm just an "optimizer" by nature and cant help myself!

I'm the same.

But....... if there are 400 million people in the USA
and say 100 million homes.... and if we save just ONE
watt in the fridge bulb.... that is 100 million watts
saved!!

I thought it was below 300m, so a few less watts saved!

~350M I believe.

Interestingly, this came out today:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8224520.stm

I've always used the rule of thumb that the US population is five times the
UK and don't see a reason to change it!

The UK is less that 1/3 the size of TX, so think of what that means for
population density and why just about nothing can be compared across the
two countries.

Pete C. wrote:
wrote:

wrote:

It gets corrupted from time to time, but in the end the market
place usually comes up with the right answer to this kind of
question.

Yeah..... except healthcare

Our health care system works well, 86% of our ~350M population has
health insurance and of the remaining 14% a good number have it
available, but choose not to take it.

Our health care system is far from broken and while you can readily
come up with a few percent of the population with health care horror
stories in the US, Canada, UK, etc. and make emotional news stories
out of them, the fact is that the number is an extremely small
percentage of the population.

What US health care needs is refinement, not reform. Tighter controls
on insurance companies, more consumer protection, and a bit better
method for handling the bottom few percent of the population than the
current emergency room strategy. Doctors also need to rationalize the
fact that theirs is no longer a gold mine career path and they may
need to live with a smaller yacht and house.

You make some good points. I would argue for LESSER controls on insurance
companies - let the market decide.

As it is now, individual states mandate all manner of restrictions on
insurance companies. For example, health insurance companies, in some
states, must provide coverage for mental health, acupuncture, chiropractic,
aroma therapy, substance abuse rehabilitation, homeopathy, phrenology, or
all manner of fringe silliness. If someone wants to buy a policy without
'breast augmentation to improve self esteem,' then they should be able to do
so.

Further, one must not lose sight of the essential fact that lack of health
insurance is NOT the same thing as lack of health care.

Joke:
Over the dinner table at the home of a pediatrician
Wife: "Honey, I had lunch with Madge today. We need to up our Pfizer stock.

Meanwhile, at the surgeon's house:
Wife: "Honey, I had lunch with Doris today. We need to stock up on Viagra."

Pete C. wrote:
Clot wrote:

Pete C. wrote:
Clot wrote:

wrote:
"Clot" wrote:


But....... if there are 400 million people in the USA
and say 100 million homes.... and if we save just ONE
watt in the fridge bulb.... that is 100 million watts
saved!!

I thought it was below 300m, so a few less watts saved!

~350M I believe.

Interestingly, this came out today:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8224520.stm

I've always used the rule of thumb that the US population is five
times the UK and don't see a reason to change it!

The UK is less that 1/3 the size of TX, so think of what that means
for population density and why just about nothing can be compared
across the two countries.

Quite. It's one of the reasons we tend to have smaller vehicles! We each
have an eighth of the space over here.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...tion_d ensity

On 8/27/2009 9:23 AM Pete C. spake thus:

On that last part, yes it is naive to think that much of any of these
recycling efforts makes any real difference. Some of the stuff we have
been recycling for the longest time such as glass is a net negative
environmentally to recycle, but it makes folks who don't look at the
details feel better.

How do you figure that recycling glass is a "net negative environmentally"?

Not necessarily challenging that, but I am interested in the details.
I've always thought that recycling glass is basically picking some of
the lowest-hanging fruit, environmentally and economically speaking. It
requires little processing other than remelting (along with some
separation of dross) to make new bottles, etc., out of it. Certainly
better than recycling plastic, which I assume must be a horrible net
negative.

Enlighten me, please.


--
Found--the gene that causes belief in genetic determinism

In article ,
"HeyBub" wrote:

As it is now, individual states mandate all manner of restrictions on
insurance companies. For example, health insurance companies, in some
states, must provide coverage for mental health, acupuncture, chiropractic,
aroma therapy, substance abuse rehabilitation, homeopathy, phrenology, or
all manner of fringe silliness. If someone wants to buy a policy without
'breast augmentation to improve self esteem,' then they should be able to do
so.

Well, I'm pretty sure that my policy doesn't cover aromatherapy.
Homeopathy is snake oil by any stretch of the imagination, and even the
Chinese admit that acupuncture doesn't carry so much as the placebo
effect in any controlled scientific study. But of course, you lapse into
hyperbole for the sake of humor.

As for breast augmentation, it's discriminatory to offer coverage only
for women. Shouldn't my policy cover the costs if I get stuck with an
under-endowed girlfriend, and it negatively impacts *my* self esteem?

In article ,
"charlie" wrote:


interest free loan for N years x M number of buyers - devaluation of the $
over N years = a lot

Makes sense. A friend in the investment world told me a number of years
ago that insurance companies actually pay out slightly more in claims
than they take in in premiums. Their profit comes from investing your
money between the time you pay the premium and the time you make your
claim.

"Pete C." wrote:

Our health care system works well, 86% of our ~350M population has
health insurance and of the remaining 14% a good number have it
available, but choose not to take it.

**** all it is !!!!

It is the biggest cluster **** ever!!!

David Nebenzahl wrote:

On 8/27/2009 9:23 AM Pete C. spake thus:

On that last part, yes it is naive to think that much of any of these
recycling efforts makes any real difference. Some of the stuff we have
been recycling for the longest time such as glass is a net negative
environmentally to recycle, but it makes folks who don't look at the
details feel better.

How do you figure that recycling glass is a "net negative environmentally"?

Not necessarily challenging that, but I am interested in the details.
I've always thought that recycling glass is basically picking some of
the lowest-hanging fruit, environmentally and economically speaking. It
requires little processing other than remelting (along with some
separation of dross) to make new bottles, etc., out of it. Certainly
better than recycling plastic, which I assume must be a horrible net
negative.


It varies with the particular commodity being recycled, with glass being
about the worst example.

Glass is basically made from sand, there is no shortage of sand on the
planet, glass is entirely inert in landfills and the energy required to
re-melt glass to recycle it is nearly the same as that required to make
new glass from raw materials. Therefore the energy, typically diesel
fuel, and other overhead required to transport glass to be recycled is a
net negative environmentally.

Aluminum is probably one of the best examples since while the raw
material is abundant, the energy required to refine useable aluminum
from the raw material vastly exceeds the energy required to collect,
re-melt and recycle it.

Recycling plastic used to be pretty negative back when about all you
could do with it was burn it to run a generator. Technology improved and
they were able to take mixed plastic and re-melt it to form non critical
items like shipping crates and palettes. The latest recycling technology
can separate mixed ground plastic into the different types of plastic
which allows it to be recycled into higher grade applications.

Clot wrote:

Pete C. wrote:
Clot wrote:

Pete C. wrote:
Clot wrote:

wrote:
"Clot" wrote:


But....... if there are 400 million people in the USA
and say 100 million homes.... and if we save just ONE
watt in the fridge bulb.... that is 100 million watts
saved!!

I thought it was below 300m, so a few less watts saved!

~350M I believe.

Interestingly, this came out today:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8224520.stm

I've always used the rule of thumb that the US population is five
times the UK and don't see a reason to change it!

The UK is less that 1/3 the size of TX, so think of what that means
for population density and why just about nothing can be compared
across the two countries.

Quite. It's one of the reasons we tend to have smaller vehicles! We each
have an eighth of the space over here.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...tion_d ensity

That's why the bone heads in either "wing" trying to compare the US
health care system with the UK health care system are just comparing
apples and brussel sprouts, there just isn't much valid comparison.

Clearly delivering health care to a high density population is more
efficient and less costly than delivering the same health care to a
population spread over a much larger area. With low population density,
more medical facilities, doctors, nurses and support staff are required
to serve the same number of people.

The low population density in much of the US is also why mass transit
isn't viable in much of the US. In the areas where the density is
sufficient *gasp* we do have mass transit in the US.

"Clot" wrote in message
...
Pete C. wrote:
Clot wrote:

Pete C. wrote:
Clot wrote:

wrote:
"Clot" wrote:


But....... if there are 400 million people in the USA
and say 100 million homes.... and if we save just ONE
watt in the fridge bulb.... that is 100 million watts
saved!!

I thought it was below 300m, so a few less watts saved!

~350M I believe.

Interestingly, this came out today:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8224520.stm

I've always used the rule of thumb that the US population is five
times the UK and don't see a reason to change it!

The UK is less that 1/3 the size of TX, so think of what that means
for population density and why just about nothing can be compared
across the two countries.

Quite. It's one of the reasons we tend to have smaller vehicles! We each
have an eighth of the space over here.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...tion_d ensity

Yeah, but we tend to bunch up pretty badly, so having all that space doesn't
really help a whole lot of us too much.
Later,
Charlie Carothers
--
My email address is csquared3 at tx dot rr dot com

wrote:

"Pete C." wrote:

Our health care system works well, 86% of our ~350M population has
health insurance and of the remaining 14% a good number have it
available, but choose not to take it.

**** all it is !!!!

It is the biggest cluster **** ever!!!

Those are the facts, whether you like them or not.

CSquared wrote:
"Clot" wrote in message
...
Pete C. wrote:
Clot wrote:

Pete C. wrote:
Clot wrote:

wrote:
"Clot" wrote:


But....... if there are 400 million people in the USA
and say 100 million homes.... and if we save just ONE
watt in the fridge bulb.... that is 100 million watts
saved!!

I thought it was below 300m, so a few less watts saved!

~350M I believe.

Interestingly, this came out today:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8224520.stm

I've always used the rule of thumb that the US population is five
times the UK and don't see a reason to change it!

The UK is less that 1/3 the size of TX, so think of what that means
for population density and why just about nothing can be compared
across the two countries.

Quite. It's one of the reasons we tend to have smaller vehicles! We
each have an eighth of the space over here.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...tion_d ensity

Yeah, but we tend to bunch up pretty badly, so having all that space
doesn't really help a whole lot of us too much.

I was thinking the same way when reading Pete's view, but I think there are
more communities of say ballpark 5, 000 to 10,000 people that are at a
further distance to larger communities than here in the UK which would
result in more local facilities being required in smaller communities than
here in the UK.

Smitty Two wrote:

You certainly are, for obsessing about the waste of an incandescent bulb
in your fridge.

Your STLL a ****in retard

Clot wrote:

CSquared wrote:
"Clot" wrote in message
...
Pete C. wrote:
Clot wrote:

Pete C. wrote:
Clot wrote:

wrote:
"Clot" wrote:


But....... if there are 400 million people in the USA
and say 100 million homes.... and if we save just ONE
watt in the fridge bulb.... that is 100 million watts
saved!!

I thought it was below 300m, so a few less watts saved!

~350M I believe.

Interestingly, this came out today:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8224520.stm

I've always used the rule of thumb that the US population is five
times the UK and don't see a reason to change it!

The UK is less that 1/3 the size of TX, so think of what that means
for population density and why just about nothing can be compared
across the two countries.

Quite. It's one of the reasons we tend to have smaller vehicles! We
each have an eighth of the space over here.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...tion_d ensity

Yeah, but we tend to bunch up pretty badly, so having all that space
doesn't really help a whole lot of us too much.

I was thinking the same way when reading Pete's view, but I think there are
more communities of say ballpark 5, 000 to 10,000 people that are at a
further distance to larger communities than here in the UK which would
result in more local facilities being required in smaller communities than
here in the UK.

Yes, and there are plenty of areas in the US where you can drive for
many miles passing through town after town with triple digit
populations. Providing services to people in these areas is
substantially more expensive than people in a large city. Transportation
issues are a big issue for the poorer folks, you could give universal
coverage to them (which already exists anyway in emergency rooms), but
they still need to somehow get to the medical center that might be 50
miles away.

Pete C. wrote:
Clot wrote:

CSquared wrote:
"Clot" wrote in message
...
Pete C. wrote:
Clot wrote:

Pete C. wrote:
Clot wrote:

wrote:
"Clot" wrote:


But....... if there are 400 million people in the USA
and say 100 million homes.... and if we save just ONE
watt in the fridge bulb.... that is 100 million watts
saved!!

I thought it was below 300m, so a few less watts saved!

~350M I believe.

Interestingly, this came out today:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8224520.stm

I've always used the rule of thumb that the US population is five
times the UK and don't see a reason to change it!

The UK is less that 1/3 the size of TX, so think of what that
means for population density and why just about nothing can be
compared across the two countries.

Quite. It's one of the reasons we tend to have smaller vehicles!
We each have an eighth of the space over here.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...tion_d ensity

Yeah, but we tend to bunch up pretty badly, so having all that space
doesn't really help a whole lot of us too much.

I was thinking the same way when reading Pete's view, but I think
there are more communities of say ballpark 5, 000 to 10,000 people
that are at a further distance to larger communities than here in
the UK which would result in more local facilities being required in
smaller communities than here in the UK.

Yes, and there are plenty of areas in the US where you can drive for
many miles passing through town after town with triple digit
populations. Providing services to people in these areas is
substantially more expensive than people in a large city.
Transportation issues are a big issue for the poorer folks, you could
give universal coverage to them (which already exists anyway in
emergency rooms), but they still need to somehow get to the medical
center that might be 50 miles away.

Precisely so.

DGDevin wrote:

Mike Dobony wrote:

If you were Ayatollah of the world you wouldn't care about science.
The history of Islam is one of repression of science, among other
things.

Man, you need to do some reading. Start with a fellow named Kitab
al-Manazir, who between 1011 and 1021 wrote the seven-volume Book Of Optics
that helped to establish the modern scientific method. That's not
surprising when you consider that while Europe was still mucking around in
the Dark Ages, science and art were flourishing in much of the Islamic
world. While that sadly changed over the centuries, it is foolish to
pretend that at one time the Islamic world wasn't ahead of the west in
scientific terms. And for that matter Christianity doesn't have such a
great record when it comes to suppressing science. Come to think of it, a
significant number of today's Christians seem to have some problems when it
comes to science, don't they.

I'm not a history buff, so I don't have exact dates, but wouldn't
1011-1021 be right around the time that islam was starting? Wouldn't
that make mr. kitab's work more of the "arab world" than the "islamic
world"? And wouldn't the decline of science in the "arab world" pretty
well track with the rise of the "islamic world"? As for the christians,
you are certainly correct there, they had their science repression
phase, violent crusade phase, a phase of relative calm and now seem to
be slipping back into both the science repression and violent crusade
phases at the same time.

Smitty Two wrote:
In article ,
"charlie" wrote:

interest free loan for N years x M number of buyers - devaluation of the $
over N years = a lot

Makes sense. A friend in the investment world told me a number of years
ago that insurance companies actually pay out slightly more in claims
than they take in in premiums. Their profit comes from investing your
money between the time you pay the premium and the time you make your
claim.

Does that mean that premiums will go up, lagging behind the downturn in
the economy? Great. something else to look forward to.

nate

--
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
http://members.cox.net/njnagel

On Thu, 27 Aug 2009 12:16:13 -0500, "HeyBub"
wrote:

Pete C. wrote:
wrote:

...


Our health care system works well, 86% of our ~350M population has
health insurance and of the remaining 14% a good number have it
available, but choose not to take it.

Or maybe can't afford it. They end up with poor healthcare
(the emergency room) and we all end up paying for their care which is
delivered at a much higher cost than normal care and since they don't
get preventative care, they are less healthy and therfor cost even
more while recieveing less care.

That is the way compition has worked in this non-free,
non-competitive market.

....

You make some good points. I would argue for LESSER controls on insurance
companies - let the market decide.

As it is now, individual states mandate all manner of restrictions on
insurance companies....

I would agree that current regulations need major revisions.

I would like to take the profit motive out of the system as
much as possible.

For example no doctor should recieve any benefit from sending
a paticent for a test, or procedure. They should be isolated from the
profit of MRI's and perscriptions etc.

As an example: I have a back problem. When it comes up I need
help now.

In the US I end up in the emergency room. There they start
with my insurance card, I see three or for people, all taking
information over the first 20 minutes or so that I am there. I
finally see the doctor and each time, the send me to get one of those
fancy X-ray test that cost a ton. Each time I am taking up a room in
the emergency area of the hospital. Each time they come back with the
same conclusion, and prescribe several perscriptions.

In the UK I get to the emergency room, talk to the lady behind
the desk and I am asked to wait. I was infromed that they knew what
the problem was, but they needed to find a doctor free to write the
prescription. Doctor came we talked while he examined me and within
15 minutes of arriving, I was on a stretcher in the hallway waiting
for the drugs to take effect. I was out of there in less time than it
took to finish the text in the US. Yea, I did not have a private
room, and I was not on an IV and I did not get more X-rays and I had
no bill to pay, nor did they even care that myUS insurance covered me
there.

Let's see, US more time more test and more cost to me and my
insurance company vs faster care, less X-Ray exposure and less than
thirty minutes total vs two to three hourse in the US.

Why in the world would you want the public medical service
when you can get much more expensive care in the US. Of course I can
see where a lot of our commerical medical industry might want to keep
things as they are.

In article ,
wrote:

Smitty Two wrote:

You certainly are, for obsessing about the waste of an incandescent bulb
in your fridge.

Your STLL a ****in retard

And you're still unable to compose a sentence in the English language.
But apparently you're learning. Last time, you made about four mistakes
with three words, and now with five words, I still only count four
mistakes. So you're doing better than one mistake per word. Stunning.
You must've replaced your brain with one of those high-efficiency LEDs.

wrote:

On Thu, 27 Aug 2009 12:16:13 -0500, "HeyBub"
wrote:

Pete C. wrote:
wrote:

..


Our health care system works well, 86% of our ~350M population has
health insurance and of the remaining 14% a good number have it
available, but choose not to take it.

Or maybe can't afford it.

No, it's been documented that in that uninsured 14% there are a good
number of mostly young and healthy folks who choose to take the gamble
and use the funds that would be their contribution to health insurance
coverage for other purposes. It would be good if those other purposes
were a down payment on a house or something else good, but most of the
time it's for something silly like a new car or ipod. Either way, it's
their life and their right to take that risk.

They end up with poor healthcare
(the emergency room)

So you're saying that the emergency room, the same emergency room that
handles those with health insurance, provides substandard care?

and we all end up paying for their care which is
delivered at a much higher cost than normal care and since they don't
get preventative care, they are less healthy and therfor cost even
more while recieveing less care.

Well, this applies to the portion of that 14% who do not have health
insurance available, difficult to quantify, but perhaps it's 8% or so of
the total population. This is where the system needs refinement, not
reform, to better target preventative care at those 8% who do not have
access to health insurance.


That is the way compition has worked in this non-free,
non-competitive market.

...

You make some good points. I would argue for LESSER controls on insurance
companies - let the market decide.

As it is now, individual states mandate all manner of restrictions on
insurance companies....

I would agree that current regulations need major revisions.

I would like to take the profit motive out of the system as
much as possible.

For example no doctor should recieve any benefit from sending
a paticent for a test, or procedure. They should be isolated from the
profit of MRI's and perscriptions etc.

As an example: I have a back problem. When it comes up I need
help now.

In the US I end up in the emergency room. There they start
with my insurance card, I see three or for people, all taking
information over the first 20 minutes or so that I am there. I
finally see the doctor and each time, the send me to get one of those
fancy X-ray test that cost a ton. Each time I am taking up a room in
the emergency area of the hospital. Each time they come back with the
same conclusion, and prescribe several perscriptions.

In the UK I get to the emergency room, talk to the lady behind
the desk and I am asked to wait. I was infromed that they knew what
the problem was, but they needed to find a doctor free to write the
prescription. Doctor came we talked while he examined me and within
15 minutes of arriving, I was on a stretcher in the hallway waiting
for the drugs to take effect. I was out of there in less time than it
took to finish the text in the US. Yea, I did not have a private
room, and I was not on an IV and I did not get more X-rays and I had
no bill to pay, nor did they even care that myUS insurance covered me
there.

Let's see, US more time more test and more cost to me and my
insurance company vs faster care, less X-Ray exposure and less than
thirty minutes total vs two to three hourse in the US.

Why in the world would you want the public medical service
when you can get much more expensive care in the US. Of course I can
see where a lot of our commerical medical industry might want to keep
things as they are.

You bring up two basic issues he

The first is the efficiency of records access in the UK public health
system, vs. the US. In the US, unless you are going to see your regular
doctor, the people treating you won't know didly about your past medical
history. This is one of the reasons for the longer wait time and
additional test.

They have been trying to streamline medical records in the US, but keep
running into the privacy issue (we have more privacy rights in the US
generally). I think they will eventually settle on some form of
standardized medical ID card to keep in your wallet with a chip
containing your records.

A standardized chip card with records would ensure they are in your
custody, not some central server subject to hacking, and can be provided
to any medical personnel treating you for the duration needed. In the
case you don't have the card with you, it's no worse than it is today,
so no disaster, just a bit less efficiency.

The second issue is that doctors in the US are currently incentivised to
order extra tests for a number of reasons. They get additional payment
for ordering those tests, and with insurance companies paying rather
low, they try to get as much as they can by ordering more tests. The
next incentive for extra tests is for protection from the insanely
litigious US population, who will sue for the tiniest error and those
extra tests help to cover the doctors posterior. And of course the third
reason for those extra tests was covered above, lack of access to
previous medical records which leads to redundant testing.

Again, all this points to a need to refine the US system, not "reform"
it by ripping it out and starting over.

"Pete C." wrote:

It is the biggest cluster **** ever!!!

Those are the facts, whether you like them or not.

Link?

Besides who the hell trusts stats from Repubs!

DGDevin wrote:
Mike Dobony wrote:

If you were Ayatollah of the world you wouldn't care about science.
The history of Islam is one of repression of science, among other
things.

Man, you need to do some reading. Start with a fellow named Kitab
al-Manazir, who between 1011 and 1021 wrote the seven-volume Book Of
Optics that helped to establish the modern scientific method. That's not
surprising when you consider that while Europe was still
mucking around in the Dark Ages, science and art were flourishing in
much of the Islamic world. While that sadly changed over the
centuries, it is foolish to pretend that at one time the Islamic
world wasn't ahead of the west in scientific terms. And for that
matter Christianity doesn't have such a great record when it comes to
suppressing science. Come to think of it, a significant number of
today's Christians seem to have some problems when it comes to
science, don't they.

At one time, Islam WAS ahead of the west. But not lately.

With 1.4 billion adherents to the faith, Muslims have been awarded TWO
scientific Nobel Prizes.

wrote:

Our health care system works well, 86% of our ~350M population has
health insurance and of the remaining 14% a good number have it
available, but choose not to take it.

Or maybe can't afford it. They end up with poor healthcare
(the emergency room) and we all end up paying for their care which is
delivered at a much higher cost than normal care and since they don't
get preventative care, they are less healthy and therfor cost even
more while recieveing less care.

Or maybe they're illegal aliens (~15 million).
Or maybe they're incarcerated (~2.6 million).
Or maybe they're between jobs (~2.2 million).
Or maybe they're between 18 and 27 and choose to spend their money otherwise
(~3.3 million)
Or maybe they're eligible for Medicaid or S-CHIPS and will apply when they
get sick (?)
Or maybe they're self-insured (?)



That is the way compition has worked in this non-free,
non-competitive market.

...

You make some good points. I would argue for LESSER controls on
insurance companies - let the market decide.

As it is now, individual states mandate all manner of restrictions on
insurance companies....

I would agree that current regulations need major revisions.

I would like to take the profit motive out of the system as
much as possible.

Try to wrap your mind around this fact: It is the profit incentive that
drives innovation. Without the profit motive, we wouldn't have breast
implants and all manner of other wonderful advances.


For example no doctor should recieve any benefit from sending
a paticent for a test, or procedure. They should be isolated from the
profit of MRI's and perscriptions etc.

If the referral is to another company, that practice is already illegal.


As an example: I have a back problem. When it comes up I need
help now.

In the US I end up in the emergency room. There they start
with my insurance card, I see three or for people, all taking
information over the first 20 minutes or so that I am there. I
finally see the doctor and each time, the send me to get one of those
fancy X-ray test that cost a ton. Each time I am taking up a room in
the emergency area of the hospital. Each time they come back with the
same conclusion, and prescribe several perscriptions.

In the UK I get to the emergency room, talk to the lady behind
the desk and I am asked to wait. I was infromed that they knew what
the problem was, but they needed to find a doctor free to write the
prescription. Doctor came we talked while he examined me and within
15 minutes of arriving, I was on a stretcher in the hallway waiting
for the drugs to take effect. I was out of there in less time than it
took to finish the text in the US. Yea, I did not have a private
room, and I was not on an IV and I did not get more X-rays and I had
no bill to pay, nor did they even care that myUS insurance covered me
there.

Let's see, US more time more test and more cost to me and my
insurance company vs faster care, less X-Ray exposure and less than
thirty minutes total vs two to three hourse in the US.

That's you. I place a call to my doctor and drive to the pharmacy. There I
pick up a bottle of 60 Vicodin and hand over $5.00. I'm done.

I'm glad I'm not you.

Look up. Do you see a black cloud following you around? Sure sounds like it.


Why in the world would you want the public medical service
when you can get much more expensive care in the US. Of course I can
see where a lot of our commerical medical industry might want to keep
things as they are.

Because I CAN GET more expensive medical care in the U.S.

I read about a case recently involving an 82-year-old woman from the UK who
had suffered for several years with pain in her finger joints. Many visits
to her local GP all resulted in the same diagnosis and treatment: This
happens when you get old and take Tylenol.

She visited her granddaughter in rural New Hampshire and had an episode. In
fact, her left hand even swelled a bit. Her relatives took her to their
local doctor, who, within two hours had X-rays, blood work, and an MRI.
Diagnosis: GOUT!

She got some pills.

Mind you, all this was at a small hospital in rural New Hampshire. Oh, the
whole episode cost a few hundred dollars, but years of suffering went away.

wrote:

"Pete C." wrote:

It is the biggest cluster **** ever!!!

Those are the facts, whether you like them or not.

Link?

Not handy, I looked it up a few months ago.


Besides who the hell trusts stats from Repubs!

It was from a government site, probably census.

In .com, Pete C.
wrote in part:

On that last part, yes it is naive to think that much of any of these
recycling efforts makes any real difference. Some of the stuff we have
been recycling for the longest time such as glass is a net negative
environmentally to recycle, but it makes folks who don't look at the
details feel better.

I think that the bottom line for recycling glass is positive, since
doing so conserves landfill space. Can you imagine the hassle from the
NIMBYs each time we need to start a new landfill?

- Don Klipstein )

wrote:
"Pete C." wrote:

It is the biggest cluster **** ever!!!

Those are the facts, whether you like them or not.

Link?

Besides who the hell trusts stats from Repubs!

Well, here's one statistic:

"In summary, CBO regards the estimates of between 5 million and 6 million
children who are uninsured and eligible for Medicaid or SCHIP as more
appropriate for considering policies aimed at enrolling more eligible
children in those programs."

http://www.cbo.gov/doc.cfm?index=8357&type=0


Our president himself says there are abou 13-15 million illegal aliens in
the country.

The Department of Justice census says there are 2.6 million people
incarcerated in various prisons and jails.

The following active duty military personnel do not have insurance:

Army - 543,000
Marines - 158,000
Navy - 335,000
Air Force - 330,000
Total: 1,366,000

We're up to about 25 million already without even considering those who
decline to enroll in an available insurance program.

In article ,
wrote:


Or maybe can't afford it. They end up with poor healthcare
(the emergency room) and we all end up paying for their care which is
delivered at a much higher cost than normal care and since they don't
get preventative care, they are less healthy and therfor cost even
more while recieveing less care.

Interesting line of studies from ~1990 or so showing that there are
often MORE insureds using emergency rooms for non-emergent reasons. EDs
are open at more convenient hours for those that work, maybe closer, and
other reasons.
There is also an interesting line of studies showing that even
large numbers of those insured don't get preventative care. Again, lack
of convenient hours, not wanting to hassel with it etc. I think both of
these "fixes" are not going have the cost savings impact people think
they will have.


I would like to take the profit motive out of the system as
much as possible.

For example no doctor should recieve any benefit from sending
a paticent for a test, or procedure. They should be isolated from the
profit of MRI's and perscriptions etc.
I would suggest that to address obvious conflicts of interest. I
wouldn't however, try to take the profit motive out of the doc running
their office or the (independent) MRI operator or drug store.



took to finish the text in the US. Yea, I did not have a private
room, and I was not on an IV and I did not get more X-rays and I had
no bill to pay, nor did they even care that myUS insurance covered me
there.

See what happens when (1) things are paid on a per service basis and
(2) one has to practice defensive medicine to avoid law suits.

--
Searching is half the fun: life is much more manageable when thought
of as a scavenger hunt as opposed to a surprise party.
Jimmy Buffett

In , HeyBub wrote in part:

The following active duty military personnel do not have insurance:

Army - 543,000
Marines - 158,000
Navy - 335,000
Air Force - 330,000
Total: 1,366,000

We're up to about 25 million already without even considering those who
decline to enroll in an available insurance program.

Is that not 1,366,000 covered by the gubmint, no more inunsured than
those on Medicare and Medicaid?

- Don Klipstein )

In article .com,
"Pete C." wrote:



Well, this applies to the portion of that 14% who do not have health
insurance available, difficult to quantify, but perhaps it's 8% or so of
the total population. This is where the system needs refinement, not
reform, to better target preventative care at those 8% who do not have
access to health insurance.
Even then there is insurance available. I worked at a County General
hospital that is about 80% Medicare/Medicaid billing. A few years ago
they started getting aggressive in referring people and found that
around 20% of their uninsured charity care qualified for a federal
program. I realize that is n=1 study, but still though that was
interesting.


They have been trying to streamline medical records in the US, but keep
running into the privacy issue (we have more privacy rights in the US
generally). I think they will eventually settle on some form of
standardized medical ID card to keep in your wallet with a chip
containing your records.

Or just an electronic medical records. Around 50 different hospitals,
health systems, freestanding surgery centers and all attached physicians
in Indiana are all able to talk to each other. So, if I am a patient in
Indy and I have a problem in Ft. Wayne, the hospital there can most
likely access all of my medical records in real time. That is all that
is needed.
In fact, last month they rolled out a version that will send a
subset of my records to an ambulance as it speeds to my aid. Okay, as
soon as they get there and find out who hte patient is (g).


The second issue is that doctors in the US are currently incentivised to
order extra tests for a number of reasons. They get additional payment
for ordering those tests, and with insurance companies paying rather
low, they try to get as much as they can by ordering more tests.
Before you get all obnoxious about low insurance company payments,
both MCare and MCaid pay much less than the Evil Insurance Companies for
similar procedures. The rest is correct, though.

--
Searching is half the fun: life is much more manageable when thought
of as a scavenger hunt as opposed to a surprise party.
Jimmy Buffett

Smitty Two wrote:

And you're still unable to compose a sentence in the English language.
But apparently you're learning. Last time, you made about four mistakes
with three words, and now with five words, I still only count four
mistakes. So you're doing better than one mistake per word. Stunning.
You must've replaced your brain with one of those high-efficiency LEDs.

and you are STILL a ****in retard