Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
Home Repair (alt.home.repair) For all homeowners and DIYers with many experienced tradesmen. Solve your toughest home fix-it problems. |
Reply |
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#41
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
CFLs vs LEDs vs incandescents: round 1,538
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. |
#42
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
CFLs vs LEDs vs incandescents: round 1,538
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 |
#43
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
CFLs vs LEDs vs incandescents: round 1,538
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 |
#44
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
CFLs vs LEDs vs incandescents: round 1,538
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. |
#45
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
CFLs vs LEDs vs incandescents: round 1,538
|
#47
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
CFLs vs LEDs vs incandescents: round 1,538
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 |
#48
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
CFLs vs LEDs vs incandescents: round 1,538
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! |
#49
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
CFLs vs LEDs vs incandescents: round 1,538
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. |
#50
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
CFLs vs LEDs vs incandescents: round 1,538
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? |
#51
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
CFLs vs LEDs vs incandescents: round 1,538
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. |
#52
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
CFLs vs LEDs vs incandescents: round 1,538
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." |
#53
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
CFLs vs LEDs vs incandescents: round 1,538
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 |
#54
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
CFLs vs LEDs vs incandescents: round 1,538
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 |
#55
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
CFLs vs LEDs vs incandescents: round 1,538
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? |
#56
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
CFLs vs LEDs vs incandescents: round 1,538
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. |
#57
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
CFLs vs LEDs vs incandescents: round 1,538
"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!!! |
#58
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
CFLs vs LEDs vs incandescents: round 1,538
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. |
#59
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
CFLs vs LEDs vs incandescents: round 1,538
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. |
#60
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
CFLs vs LEDs vs incandescents: round 1,538
"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 |
#61
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
CFLs vs LEDs vs incandescents: round 1,538
|
#62
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
CFLs vs LEDs vs incandescents: round 1,538
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. |
#63
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
CFLs vs LEDs vs incandescents: round 1,538
Smitty Two wrote:
You certainly are, for obsessing about the waste of an incandescent bulb in your fridge. Your STLL a ****in retard |
#64
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
CFLs vs LEDs vs incandescents: round 1,538
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. |
#65
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
CFLs vs LEDs vs incandescents: round 1,538
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. |
#66
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
CFLs vs LEDs vs incandescents: round 1,538
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. |
#67
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
CFLs vs LEDs vs incandescents: round 1,538
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 |
#68
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
CFLs vs LEDs vs incandescents: round 1,538
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. |
#69
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
CFLs vs LEDs vs incandescents: round 1,538
|
#70
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
CFLs vs LEDs vs incandescents: round 1,538
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. |
#71
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
CFLs vs LEDs vs incandescents: round 1,538
"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! |
#72
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
CFLs vs LEDs vs incandescents: round 1,538
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. |
#73
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
CFLs vs LEDs vs incandescents: round 1,538
|
#74
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
CFLs vs LEDs vs incandescents: round 1,538
|
#75
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
CFLs vs LEDs vs incandescents: round 1,538
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 ) |
#76
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
CFLs vs LEDs vs incandescents: round 1,538
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. |
#77
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
CFLs vs LEDs vs incandescents: round 1,538
|
#78
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
CFLs vs LEDs vs incandescents: round 1,538
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 ) |
#79
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
CFLs vs LEDs vs incandescents: round 1,538
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 |
#80
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
CFLs vs LEDs vs incandescents: round 1,538
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 |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
CFLs | UK diy | |||
CFLs....again | Home Repair | |||
CFLs | Home Repair | |||
Musing about wood going round and round. Where it stops nobodyknows! | Woodturning | |||
can a small round table expand to large round dining table exist? | Woodworking |