In article ,
(Don Klipstein) wrote:

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 )

When I was a kid, we took our coke bottles back to the store to get our
2 cent deposit back. They washed 'em out and refilled 'em. Makes sense
to me.

Smitty Two wrote:

In article ,
(Don Klipstein) wrote:

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 )

When I was a kid, we took our coke bottles back to the store to get our
2 cent deposit back. They washed 'em out and refilled 'em. Makes sense
to me.

Yes, however they aren't allowed to do that anymore. Now the glass has
to be remelted and remolded into new bottles to ensure there are no
post-consumer cooties left, which uses more energy (when you include the
transportation), than just making new bottles from raw materials.

"Clot" wrote in message
...
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.

One of my friends from the rural area where I grew up about 70 miles NE of
Dallas suggested recently that maybe I'd like to move back some day. I told
her I really would love to in many ways, but that it would make the trip to
all our various doctors an awfully long drive! As a result, I think we had
best just stay put. It is only about 8 or 9 miles from our house to either
of 2 very fine teaching hospitals here. I will grant you that there are
likely some fine doctors less than 20 miles from my old home, but I'm not
sure all the specialties we currently require at our "advanced age" are
available there. Just as one example, my parents lived in that general area
pretty much to the end of their lives but my Mom's oncologist was based in
Dallas though ISTR he saw patients in Greenville at least one day a week.
Later,
Charlie Carothers
--
My email address is csquared3 at tx dot rr dot com

Pete C. wrote:

When I was a kid, we took our coke bottles back to the store to get
our 2 cent deposit back. They washed 'em out and refilled 'em. Makes
sense to me.

Yes, however they aren't allowed to do that anymore. Now the glass has
to be remelted and remolded into new bottles to ensure there are no
post-consumer cooties left, which uses more energy (when you include
the transportation), than just making new bottles from raw materials.

This is also true of many things. It's easier and cheaper to provide plastic
forks than to wash metal ones. But here's an item that's even more profound:
Books.

About 40% of mass-market paperback books are destroyed without being read.

When a publisher sells a book to a bookstore, the sale includes return
privileges: if the store doesn't sell the book, the publisher will take it
back for credit.

But in the case of paperbacks, the publisher doesn't want the physical book.
Since it costs only about 20¢ to manufacture a paperback, it's obviously
cheaper to print another copy than to transport, sort, and restock one that
didn't sell - and that probably won't sell even if the publisher managed to
get it back in the warehouse.

So, to prove the bookstore didn't actually sell the book, the bookstore rips
off the front cover and forwards that cover to the publisher. The rest of
the book is, by contract, destroyed.

(The same is true of magazines.)

Don Klipstein wrote:
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?

I guess it depends on how you define "insurance."

In the military, if you get slightly injured (anything less than the bone
sticking out), the medic or the corpsman fixes you up. This is not much
different than the role of the company nurse.

CSquared wrote:

"Clot" wrote in message
...
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.

One of my friends from the rural area where I grew up about 70 miles NE of
Dallas suggested recently that maybe I'd like to move back some day. I told
her I really would love to in many ways, but that it would make the trip to
all our various doctors an awfully long drive! As a result, I think we had
best just stay put. It is only about 8 or 9 miles from our house to either
of 2 very fine teaching hospitals here. I will grant you that there are
likely some fine doctors less than 20 miles from my old home, but I'm not
sure all the specialties we currently require at our "advanced age" are
available there. Just as one example, my parents lived in that general area
pretty much to the end of their lives but my Mom's oncologist was based in
Dallas though ISTR he saw patients in Greenville at least one day a week.
Later,
Charlie Carothers
--
My email address is csquared3 at tx dot rr dot com

TMC and the new medical center under construction in Denison would
probably be adequate.

HeyBub wrote:

Pete C. wrote:

When I was a kid, we took our coke bottles back to the store to get
our 2 cent deposit back. They washed 'em out and refilled 'em. Makes
sense to me.

Yes, however they aren't allowed to do that anymore. Now the glass has
to be remelted and remolded into new bottles to ensure there are no
post-consumer cooties left, which uses more energy (when you include
the transportation), than just making new bottles from raw materials.

This is also true of many things. It's easier and cheaper to provide plastic
forks than to wash metal ones. But here's an item that's even more profound:
Books.

About 40% of mass-market paperback books are destroyed without being read.

When a publisher sells a book to a bookstore, the sale includes return
privileges: if the store doesn't sell the book, the publisher will take it
back for credit.

But in the case of paperbacks, the publisher doesn't want the physical book.
Since it costs only about 20¢ to manufacture a paperback, it's obviously
cheaper to print another copy than to transport, sort, and restock one that
didn't sell - and that probably won't sell even if the publisher managed to
get it back in the warehouse.

So, to prove the bookstore didn't actually sell the book, the bookstore rips
off the front cover and forwards that cover to the publisher. The rest of
the book is, by contract, destroyed.

(The same is true of magazines.)

The growth of on demand publishing and online magazines will reduce that
a bit over time.

On Thu, 27 Aug 2009 20:12:42 -0700, Smitty Two
wrote:

[snip]


When I was a kid, we took our coke bottles back to the store to get our
2 cent deposit back. They washed 'em out and refilled 'em. Makes sense
to me.

And I liked drinking Coke much better when it came in those bottles
(that's not JUST because of sugar instead of HFCS).
--
Mark Lloyd
http://notstupid.us

"How could you ask me to believe in God when there's
absolutely no evidence that I can see?" -- Jodie Foster

"Pete C." wrote in message
ster.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.

Wrong. Well, yes, it's "available", but unaffordable. I'm self-employed and
I live in NY, which requires health insurance to cover nearly everything
(HMO-type) including "wellcare" office visits with a small co-pay, etc. I
never see a doctor for anything unless I'm broken or bleeding, so I only
want catastrophic coverage (heart attack, cancer, etc.) but I can't legally
buy that. The cheapest insurance I can find is 35% of my gross income (a lot
more than my mortgage payment) and it has a $3k yearly deductible. Why on
earth would I flush 35% of my income down a black hole? Also, since I have
no chance of making the deductible, I'd be paying 50% more than I would out
of pocket since my urgent care center comps 50% of the charges for the
uninsured. If you have insurance you pay the full amount even if you haven't
met the deductible.

And as for the idea that the uninsured don't have to pay for healthcare,
where did you get that idea? If I have to get stitches I get a huge bill and
I have to pay it. Maybe the taxpayers pick up the tab for the homeless and
illegals with phony paperwork, but they sure don't pick up mine.

My "health insurance" is a 45 minute daily workout and eating properly.

Don Klipstein wrote:
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?


Another difference is that between health "insurance" and health "care." The
military provides "care" but not "insurance" (likewise for cancer patients
on death row).

The absense of universal health "insurance" may or may not be a problem; the
absence of "care" would be. So far, no one has been able to quantify the
absence of "care."

h wrote:
"Pete C." wrote in message
ster.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.

Wrong. Well, yes, it's "available", but unaffordable.

So, then, you'd agree there's no lack of insurance, just the lack of "cheap"
insurance?

In article , "h"
wrote:

And as for the idea that the uninsured don't have to pay for healthcare,
where did you get that idea? If I have to get stitches I get a huge bill and
I have to pay it. Maybe the taxpayers pick up the tab for the homeless and
illegals with phony paperwork, but they sure don't pick up mine.

Had a coworker a few years back who was a low paid production worker.
Not homeless, not illegal. Just your regular white guy from Chicago who
tended to drift around a lot. He was a full time employee and eligible
for insurance through the company on the 50% plan, but chose not to take
it. Back then his share might have been $100/month or thereabouts, and
he figured he couldn't spare the $100 out of his modest paycheck.

Anyway, he ended up in the hospital for a week. The bill came to around
$75k. He told the hospital he couldn't pay it, they sent it to the
county. The county declared him "medically indigent" and paid most of
the bill. It was determined that my friend was reasonably able to pay
$300 of the $75,000, and that's how much he was billed. My calculator
shows that as 4/10 of one percent of the original bill.

He bitched about that, and never did pay it. Now, if he'd owned a home
and a stock portfolio (this was pre-crash!) but still with low income
and no insurance, then I don't know how he would have fared.

Pete C. wrote:
Smitty Two wrote:
In article ,
(Don Klipstein) wrote:

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 )
When I was a kid, we took our coke bottles back to the store to get our
2 cent deposit back. They washed 'em out and refilled 'em. Makes sense
to me.

Yes, however they aren't allowed to do that anymore. Now the glass has
to be remelted and remolded into new bottles to ensure there are no
post-consumer cooties left, which uses more energy (when you include the
transportation), than just making new bottles from raw materials.

Sure they are ALLOWED to do it, but almost nobody does any more, because
it isn't cost-effective. I think there are still maybe five CC bottling
plants in US. Long-neck beer bottles are still routinely refilled.

--
aem sends...

In article ,
aemeijers wrote:

Pete C. wrote:
Smitty Two wrote:
In article ,
(Don Klipstein) wrote:

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 )
When I was a kid, we took our coke bottles back to the store to get our
2 cent deposit back. They washed 'em out and refilled 'em. Makes sense
to me.

Yes, however they aren't allowed to do that anymore. Now the glass has
to be remelted and remolded into new bottles to ensure there are no
post-consumer cooties left, which uses more energy (when you include the
transportation), than just making new bottles from raw materials.

Sure they are ALLOWED to do it, but almost nobody does any more, because
it isn't cost-effective. I think there are still maybe five CC bottling
plants in US. Long-neck beer bottles are still routinely refilled.

--
aem sends...

I did not know this. So it's cheaper to make a new bottle than it is to
wash out an old one for re-use? And if so, why would the beer companies
still do it?

In article , HeyBub wrote:
Don Klipstein wrote:
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?

I guess it depends on how you define "insurance."

In the military, if you get slightly injured (anything less than the bone
sticking out), the medic or the corpsman fixes you up. This is not much
different than the role of the company nurse.

And if they get an illness requiring treatment, they get treated. These
people have medics and corpsmen and do get transported to hospitals when
it is necessary and possible to do so. They are not among the uncovered
roughly 13% of USA's population that are citizens or legal residents.

- Don Klipstein )

Smitty Two wrote:
In article ,
aemeijers wrote:

Pete C. wrote:
Smitty Two wrote:
In article ,
(Don Klipstein) wrote:

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 )
When I was a kid, we took our coke bottles back to the store to get our
2 cent deposit back. They washed 'em out and refilled 'em. Makes sense
to me.
Yes, however they aren't allowed to do that anymore. Now the glass has
to be remelted and remolded into new bottles to ensure there are no
post-consumer cooties left, which uses more energy (when you include the
transportation), than just making new bottles from raw materials.
Sure they are ALLOWED to do it, but almost nobody does any more, because
it isn't cost-effective. I think there are still maybe five CC bottling
plants in US. Long-neck beer bottles are still routinely refilled.

--
aem sends...

I did not know this. So it's cheaper to make a new bottle than it is to
wash out an old one for re-use? And if so, why would the beer companies
still do it?
The cost of the beer is trivial- what you are buying is the experience.
And for a certain subset of bars and/or beer drinkers, long-necks are a
vital part of the experience. Think bars where most of the people are
wearing hats. The washing and refilling is not expensive- that is mostly
automated. What is expensive is hauling the empties back and sorting and
inspecting them. Lotsa fuel burned, lotsa manual labor.

(Even for those of us who don't insist on glass, look at the cost per
ounce in a keg, once you get the deposit back, versus the cost in cans
sold retail. The beer is close to free- you are paying mostly for the
shipping and the handling of the containers.)

--
aem sends...

In article , HeyBub wrote:
h wrote:
"Pete C." wrote in message
ster.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.

Wrong. Well, yes, it's "available", but unaffordable.

So, then, you'd agree there's no lack of insurance, just the lack of "cheap"
insurance?

Lack of insurance unless it's priced out of the reach of many working
people.

About 7 years ago, I dropped a PPO after its monthly premiums got past
$400. A couple years after that, I got an individual plan with a large
deductible.

Maybe 2-3 years ago, the lowest cost Blue Cross HMO plan I could get
through my day-job workplace would cost me $600 per month. So I stuck
with my individual plan costing me little more than that per quarter then,
with annual savings close to my annual deductible. Most years that was in
my favor.

With my plan inflating at the 10%-annual-rate of healthcare premiums
plus being adjusted for my always-increasing age, and that Blue Cross HMO
as an alternative being about $700 per month (and about to go up maybe at
the usual roughly 10% annual boost if it did not recently do so), one can
see how the affordability goes down.

I may now be in for a bad year or two where I am likely to need a minor
surgery possibly two and end up meeting or getting close to a deductible
of a few kilobucks, slightly more unaffordable than paying $750-plus
monthly no matter how good my health is.

While my taxes pay for gubmint spending about as high a percentage of
GDP as Cadada and the rest of the Western world does, to cover only
Medicare (and they need supplemental plans), Medicaid, veterans, military
personnel, sCHIP enrollees, and employer contributions to health insurance
premiums of government employees in healthcare related government
agencies.
USA gubmint spending on healthcare is about the same percentage of GDP
as that of Canada and other Western countries, with that amount *not*
covering me or other private sector employees or business owners,
government employees outside healthcare agencies such as public school
teachers, most police officers, municipal workers and court employees,
and not the unemployed.

If I crash my bike while uninsured and go to an ER, I get a bill for
4-5 times what an insurance company pays, and the hospital calls the
collection agency hounds who can sue me or force me into bankruptcy if I
do not satisfy it.

I think USA's system is seriously broken and needs serious rebuilding,
and that a lot of toes need to be stepped on and a lot of oxen need to be
gored. I think best to copy whichever other Western country gets the
fewest complaints (maybe Germany?), with absolutely no more than negative
1% giving way to anyone's lobbyists attempting resistance.

- Don Klipstein )

In article ,
aemeijers wrote:

The cost of the beer is trivial- what you are buying is the experience.
And for a certain subset of bars and/or beer drinkers, long-necks are a
vital part of the experience. Think bars where most of the people are
wearing hats. The washing and refilling is not expensive- that is mostly
automated. What is expensive is hauling the empties back and sorting and
inspecting them. Lotsa fuel burned, lotsa manual labor.

(Even for those of us who don't insist on glass, look at the cost per
ounce in a keg, once you get the deposit back, versus the cost in cans
sold retail. The beer is close to free- you are paying mostly for the
shipping and the handling of the containers.)


I understand and concur, but still don't see the difference between
refilling a coke bottle and refilling a beer bottle, that would make the
one economically viable and the other one not.

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

And as for the idea that the uninsured don't have to pay for healthcare,
where did you get that idea? If I have to get stitches I get a huge bill and
I have to pay it. Maybe the taxpayers pick up the tab for the homeless and
illegals with phony paperwork, but they sure don't pick up mine.

Had a coworker a few years back who was a low paid production worker.
Not homeless, not illegal. Just your regular white guy from Chicago who
tended to drift around a lot. He was a full time employee and eligible
for insurance through the company on the 50% plan, but chose not to take
it. Back then his share might have been $100/month or thereabouts, and
he figured he couldn't spare the $100 out of his modest paycheck.

In what year? Mere $100 or $200 I can afford - how far back when was
coverage available for $200 per month? Mid-1990's back when I was able to
afford a plan without an annual deductible in the kilobucks? More
recently with a substantial deductible?

Now, the HMO plan by the biggest insurer my way has monthly premium
about $700.

Anyway, he ended up in the hospital for a week. The bill came to around
$75k. He told the hospital he couldn't pay it, they sent it to the
county. The county declared him "medically indigent" and paid most of
the bill. It was determined that my friend was reasonably able to pay
$300 of the $75,000, and that's how much he was billed. My calculator
shows that as 4/10 of one percent of the original bill.

He bitched about that, and never did pay it. Now, if he'd owned a home
and a stock portfolio (this was pre-crash!) but still with low income
and no insurance, then I don't know how he would have fared.

Given my experience, if that modestly-paid employee refused to pay a
$300 hospital bill, then that modestly-paid employee would hear from the
hospital's collection agency. If the collection agency decided not to sue
for so little (I do concede at least somewhat likely), then that
employee's credit rating and credit score would be seriously dinged.

Meanwhile, in other Western countries, modestly paid workers paid
modestly enough to get declared "medically indigent" do not have a special
right to stick county taxpayers with their bills.

(Did the employer paying modestly, or owners/officers/executives
thereof, live in and pay county taxes of a county(ies) whose residents
are better able to afford health insurance than average of those in Cook
County?)

- Don Klipstein )

In article ,
(Don Klipstein) wrote:



In what year? Mere $100 or $200 I can afford - how far back when was
coverage available for $200 per month?

I'm thinking about 10 years ago.



Given my experience, if that modestly-paid employee refused to pay a
$300 hospital bill, then that modestly-paid employee would hear from the
hospital's collection agency. If the collection agency decided not to sue
for so little (I do concede at least somewhat likely), then that
employee's credit rating and credit score would be seriously dinged.

Credit rating? Not an issue. The guy was a vagabond, never stayed in any
given state more than a couple of years. Doubt he ever had a credit card
or a car payment in his life. Wandered off to Nevada after he left here,
then Arizona.

Anyway, he's gone now. Cops called me a year ago and said they found a
dead guy in a van; he had my phone number. I emailed them a picture of
him for positive ID.


Meanwhile, in other Western countries, modestly paid workers paid
modestly enough to get declared "medically indigent" do not have a special
right to stick county taxpayers with their bills.

(Did the employer paying modestly, or owners/officers/executives
thereof, live in and pay county taxes of a county(ies) whose residents
are better able to afford health insurance than average of those in Cook
County?)


I don't know about the relative wealth of Cook County. Santa Barbara has
some wealthy residents but the county isn't wealthy these days.

In article , HeyBub wrote:
Don Klipstein wrote:
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?


Another difference is that between health "insurance" and health "care." The
military provides "care" but not "insurance" (likewise for cancer patients
on death row).

The absense of universal health "insurance" may or may not be a problem; the
absence of "care" would be. So far, no one has been able to quantify the
absence of "care."

What happens to a soldier who just enlisted or who just re-enlisted
or just accepted a promotion in a military carreer, and then came down
with pancreatic cancer or malignant melanoma or a heart problem?

Meanwhile, soldiers getting hit with bullets on the field or at their
bases or at military quarters do not get hospital bills for bullet wounds
that they survive. Those quartered at military facilities or deployed
on the field or abord Navy ships get cared for if they get injured in
vehicle crashes (with exception for off-base recreation) - without even
needing to pay for car insurance or travel insurance.

And if Joe Sixpack or James or Joan 40-Ouncer gets maligant melanoma,
pancreatic cancer or heart trouble or a brain tumor, while making suppose
$10 per hour, who is supposed to pay for this? In all prosperous
democracies other than USA, low-paid working folk do not have a special
right to stick the taxpayers with the tab, and the gubmint does not spend
higher percentage of GDP on healthcare than USA does (even excluding
employer constributions to health insurance premiums of most gubmint
employees).

(I use lots of sunblock, keep my body fairly lean, don't smoke, am
hawkish to get my dermatologist to examine and if necessary remove
suspicious skin lesions, and I have diet and exercise to such an extent
that my LDL "Bad Cholesterol" is only 66% of my HDL "Good Cholesterol".
What are my rewards? To live longer covered [not fully] by Medicare and
hope that I am not bankrupted first?)

- Don Klipstein )

On 8/28/2009 5:25 PM Don Klipstein spake thus:

I think USA's system is seriously broken and needs serious rebuilding,
and that a lot of toes need to be stepped on and a lot of oxen need to be
gored. I think best to copy whichever other Western country gets the
fewest complaints (maybe Germany?), with absolutely no more than negative
1% giving way to anyone's lobbyists attempting resistance.

So you're implicitly in favor of a single-payer system, since that's
what Germany has, right?

(Well, not exactly: theirs is a multi-payer system, but it's a hell of a
lot closer to the national systems in Canada and the UK than the
non-system we have here in the US.)


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

Smitty Two wrote:
In article ,
aemeijers wrote:

The cost of the beer is trivial- what you are buying is the experience.
And for a certain subset of bars and/or beer drinkers, long-necks are a
vital part of the experience. Think bars where most of the people are
wearing hats. The washing and refilling is not expensive- that is mostly
automated. What is expensive is hauling the empties back and sorting and
inspecting them. Lotsa fuel burned, lotsa manual labor.

(Even for those of us who don't insist on glass, look at the cost per
ounce in a keg, once you get the deposit back, versus the cost in cans
sold retail. The beer is close to free- you are paying mostly for the
shipping and the handling of the containers.)


I understand and concur, but still don't see the difference between
refilling a coke bottle and refilling a beer bottle, that would make the
one economically viable and the other one not.
Beer, at least in the refillable bottles, is sold a lot fewer places,
and the customers don't mind paying a buck fifty a bottle?

--
aem sends...

In ,
Smitty Two wrote:
In article ,
(Don Klipstein) wrote:

In what year? Mere $100 or $200 I can afford - how far back when was
coverage available for $200 per month?

I'm thinking about 10 years ago.

Nowadays, this is much more truly unaffordable. On average, health
insurance premiums have inflated by about 10% per year. That translates
to $520 per month (employer and employee combined), $260 per month
(employee only if employer pays half). And that sounds cheap to me
compared to the cheapest my employer can get as for cheapest HMO plan by
Blue Cross (more like $700 per month for employer and employee combined).

Given my experience, if that modestly-paid employee refused to pay a
$300 hospital bill, then that modestly-paid employee would hear from the
hospital's collection agency. If the collection agency decided not to sue
for so little (I do concede at least somewhat likely), then that
employee's credit rating and credit score would be seriously dinged.

Credit rating? Not an issue. The guy was a vagabond, never stayed in any
given state more than a couple of years. Doubt he ever had a credit card
or a car payment in his life. Wandered off to Nevada after he left here,
then Arizona.

Anyway, he's gone now. Cops called me a year ago and said they found a
dead guy in a van; he had my phone number. I emailed them a picture of
him for positive ID.

So what's the story for someone above this fellow but in the working
class? As in someone more stable and having income maybe 25th percentile
of working legal residents/citizens of USA?

Meanwhile, in other Western countries, modestly paid workers paid
modestly enough to get declared "medically indigent" do not have a special
right to stick county taxpayers with their bills.

(Did the employer paying modestly, or owners/officers/executives
thereof, live in and pay county taxes of a county(ies) whose residents
are better able to afford health insurance than average of those in Cook
County?)

I don't know about the relative wealth of Cook County. Santa Barbara has
some wealthy residents but the county isn't wealthy these days.

Cook County has about 5.3 million people (2008 US Census Bureau
estimate) and median income and median wealth below national average.
If your coworker was working at the same workplace thet you were working
in while working in Chicago, you were working then in Cook County.
Chicago has about 2.8 million of the residents of Cook County, and is
somewhat opposite of a hotbed of mediam wealth and income, whether on
individual or family basis.

- Don Klipstein )

In m, David Nebenzahl
wrote:
On 8/28/2009 5:25 PM Don Klipstein spake thus:

I think USA's system is seriously broken and needs serious rebuilding,
and that a lot of toes need to be stepped on and a lot of oxen need to be
gored. I think best to copy whichever other Western country gets the
fewest complaints (maybe Germany?), with absolutely no more than negative
1% giving way to anyone's lobbyists attempting resistance.

So you're implicitly in favor of a single-payer system, since that's
what Germany has, right?

(Well, not exactly: theirs is a multi-payer system, but it's a hell of a
lot closer to the national systems in Canada and the UK than the
non-system we have here in the US.)

It very strongly appears to me that healthcare and related issues are
much better in Germany and Canada and even better in the much-maligned UK
than in USA. And I personally know many Canadians over a range of income
levels, with 100% of them preferring what they have in Canada over what
they would get if they moved to USA. If I did not have family ties in
USA, I would be trying to move to Canada - who does not spend a higher
percentage of GDP than USA does on healthcare while USA does not have
gubmint covering private sector employees, a majority of govenment
employees and much of the unemployed, nor most children of any of these.

- Don Klipstein )

In article
,
Smitty Two wrote:

I did not know this. So it's cheaper to make a new bottle than it is to
wash out an old one for re-use? And if so, why would the beer companies
still do it?

My guess would be the difference in cost from a clear pop bottle and
brown beer bottle.

--
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 article ,
(Don Klipstein) wrote:



Cook County has about 5.3 million people (2008 US Census Bureau
estimate) and median income and median wealth below national average.
If your coworker was working at the same workplace thet you were working
in while working in Chicago, you were working then in Cook County.
Chicago has about 2.8 million of the residents of Cook County, and is
somewhat opposite of a hotbed of mediam wealth and income, whether on
individual or family basis.

- Don Klipstein )

Sorry about the confusion, Don, my bad. We're in Santa Barbara. Thought
you were just curious about the situation here vs. the situation in
Chicago. Guy just happened to be originally *from* Chicago. I only
mentioned it to distinguish him from an illegal alien. No relevance to
the story other than that.

"Pete C." wrote in message
ster.com...

CSquared wrote:

"Clot" wrote in message
...
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.

One of my friends from the rural area where I grew up about 70 miles NE
of
Dallas suggested recently that maybe I'd like to move back some day. I
told
her I really would love to in many ways, but that it would make the trip
to
all our various doctors an awfully long drive! As a result, I think we
had
best just stay put. It is only about 8 or 9 miles from our house to
either
of 2 very fine teaching hospitals here. I will grant you that there are
likely some fine doctors less than 20 miles from my old home, but I'm not
sure all the specialties we currently require at our "advanced age" are
available there. Just as one example, my parents lived in that general
area
pretty much to the end of their lives but my Mom's oncologist was based
in
Dallas though ISTR he saw patients in Greenville at least one day a week.
Later,
Charlie Carothers
--
My email address is csquared3 at tx dot rr dot com

TMC and the new medical center under construction in Denison would
probably be adequate.

I'm sure it will be, and I'm happy for them. The population of Denison is
about 24,000 though, and I was thinking more of places like Commerce with
population less than 8,000. I'm sure there are better examples as you
progress to even smaller towns. My comment in this thread started out as a
weak attempt at humor, but I really do feel for all the people in rural or
semi-rural areas who are not well served medically.
Later,
Charlie Carothers
--
My email address is csquared3 at tx dot rr dot com

"Smitty Two" wrote in message
news
In article ,
(Don Klipstein) wrote:



In what year? Mere $100 or $200 I can afford - how far back when was
coverage available for $200 per month?

I'm thinking about 10 years ago.



Given my experience, if that modestly-paid employee refused to pay a
$300 hospital bill, then that modestly-paid employee would hear from the
hospital's collection agency. If the collection agency decided not to
sue
for so little (I do concede at least somewhat likely), then that
employee's credit rating and credit score would be seriously dinged.

Well, I'm a self-employed home owner. They would not only not give me a thin
dime to pay the bill, they'd probably take my house. I'm sick to death of
hearing that "low or reduced cost insurance is available for those making
little money". Yes, that's true, but in NY you have to make less than $11k a
year (single, no dependents) to qualify for this program. My income is
trashed due to the economy, I'm making less than 1/3 of what I made in 2000,
but I still make more than $11k. Not a hell of a lot more, but I'm not
considered "indigent".

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.

Perhaps you might think so but that doesn't make it true. Most
"essentials" are less expensive for the bumpkins than for your city folks.


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.

That's why folks try to stay on good terms with their neighbors. Also,
most rural communities have a "Rescue Squad" on call.

That said, if you have a heart attack while "in the sticks," the odds are
you will not get to the hospital in time to make a difference.

CSquared wrote:

"Pete C." wrote in message
ster.com...

CSquared wrote:

"Clot" wrote in message
...
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.

One of my friends from the rural area where I grew up about 70 miles NE
of
Dallas suggested recently that maybe I'd like to move back some day. I
told
her I really would love to in many ways, but that it would make the trip
to
all our various doctors an awfully long drive! As a result, I think we
had
best just stay put. It is only about 8 or 9 miles from our house to
either
of 2 very fine teaching hospitals here. I will grant you that there are
likely some fine doctors less than 20 miles from my old home, but I'm not
sure all the specialties we currently require at our "advanced age" are
available there. Just as one example, my parents lived in that general
area
pretty much to the end of their lives but my Mom's oncologist was based
in
Dallas though ISTR he saw patients in Greenville at least one day a week.
Later,
Charlie Carothers
--
My email address is csquared3 at tx dot rr dot com

TMC and the new medical center under construction in Denison would
probably be adequate.

I'm sure it will be, and I'm happy for them. The population of Denison is
about 24,000 though, and I was thinking more of places like Commerce with
population less than 8,000. I'm sure there are better examples as you
progress to even smaller towns.

My comment in this thread started out as a
weak attempt at humor, but I really do feel for all the people in rural or
semi-rural areas who are not well served medically.

Yes, however they greatly benefit by not being stuck in some miserable
big city

John Gilmer wrote:


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.

Perhaps you might think so but that doesn't make it true. Most
"essentials" are less expensive for the bumpkins than for your city folks.

I disagree.


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.

That's why folks try to stay on good terms with their neighbors. Also,
most rural communities have a "Rescue Squad" on call.

That said, if you have a heart attack while "in the sticks," the odds are
you will not get to the hospital in time to make a difference.

The availability of inexpensive AEDs helps a great deal with that last
issue.

Smitty Two wrote:
In article ,
aemeijers wrote:

The cost of the beer is trivial- what you are buying is the
experience. And for a certain subset of bars and/or beer drinkers,
long-necks are a vital part of the experience. Think bars where most
of the people are wearing hats. The washing and refilling is not
expensive- that is mostly automated. What is expensive is hauling
the empties back and sorting and inspecting them. Lotsa fuel burned,
lotsa manual labor.

(Even for those of us who don't insist on glass, look at the cost per
ounce in a keg, once you get the deposit back, versus the cost in
cans sold retail. The beer is close to free- you are paying mostly
for the shipping and the handling of the containers.)


I understand and concur, but still don't see the difference between
refilling a coke bottle and refilling a beer bottle, that would make
the one economically viable and the other one not.

The residual alcohol in beer kills all the badness. All the beer company has
to do is shake out the obvious cigarette butts.

The Coke company has to autoclave their bottles so our precious snowflakes
won't contract Chastic Fibrosis (a disease usually found in foxes).

Bottom line: It's for the children.

Don Klipstein wrote:
In article , HeyBub
wrote:
Don Klipstein wrote:
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?

I guess it depends on how you define "insurance."

In the military, if you get slightly injured (anything less than the
bone sticking out), the medic or the corpsman fixes you up. This is
not much different than the role of the company nurse.

And if they get an illness requiring treatment, they get treated.
These people have medics and corpsmen and do get transported to
hospitals when it is necessary and possible to do so. They are not
among the uncovered roughly 13% of USA's population that are citizens
or legal residents.


They ARE among the 45 million who do not have health insurance.

Once again, absence of health insurance is not the same as absence of health
care. The scare-mongering politicians have NEVER said we have 45 million
people who do not have access to health care.

Don Klipstein wrote:

It very strongly appears to me that healthcare and related issues are
much better in Germany and Canada and even better in the
much-maligned UK than in USA. And I personally know many Canadians
over a range of income levels, with 100% of them preferring what they
have in Canada over what they would get if they moved to USA.

Remember, those who were killed by the Canadian system can't tell you their
side of the story.

In article ,
"HeyBub" wrote:


Once again, absence of health insurance is not the same as absence of health
care. The scare-mongering politicians have NEVER said we have 45 million
people who do not have access to health care.

Actually have gone pretty far out of their way to AVOID saying that.
Things that make you go "HMMMM".

--
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

HeyBub wrote:
Smitty Two wrote:
In article ,
aemeijers wrote:

The cost of the beer is trivial- what you are buying is the
experience. And for a certain subset of bars and/or beer drinkers,
long-necks are a vital part of the experience. Think bars where most
of the people are wearing hats. The washing and refilling is not
expensive- that is mostly automated. What is expensive is hauling
the empties back and sorting and inspecting them. Lotsa fuel burned,
lotsa manual labor.

(Even for those of us who don't insist on glass, look at the cost per
ounce in a keg, once you get the deposit back, versus the cost in
cans sold retail. The beer is close to free- you are paying mostly
for the shipping and the handling of the containers.)

I understand and concur, but still don't see the difference between
refilling a coke bottle and refilling a beer bottle, that would make
the one economically viable and the other one not.

The residual alcohol in beer kills all the badness. All the beer company has
to do is shake out the obvious cigarette butts.

The Coke company has to autoclave their bottles so our precious snowflakes
won't contract Chastic Fibrosis (a disease usually found in foxes).

Bottom line: It's for the children.


Isn't Chastic Fibrosis that disease first discovered in the country
of Framistan?

TDD

The Daring Dufas wrote:

The residual alcohol in beer kills all the badness. All the beer
company has to do is shake out the obvious cigarette butts.

The Coke company has to autoclave their bottles so our precious
snowflakes won't contract Chastic Fibrosis (a disease usually found
in foxes). Bottom line: It's for the children.


Isn't Chastic Fibrosis that disease first discovered in the country
of Framistan?


I don't know, but my doctor says I shouldn't worry about it. Maybe he
inoculated me.

In article , HeyBub wrote:
Smitty Two wrote:
In article ,
aemeijers wrote:

The cost of the beer is trivial- what you are buying is the
experience. And for a certain subset of bars and/or beer drinkers,
long-necks are a vital part of the experience. Think bars where most
of the people are wearing hats. The washing and refilling is not
expensive- that is mostly automated. What is expensive is hauling
the empties back and sorting and inspecting them. Lotsa fuel burned,
lotsa manual labor.

(Even for those of us who don't insist on glass, look at the cost per
ounce in a keg, once you get the deposit back, versus the cost in
cans sold retail. The beer is close to free- you are paying mostly
for the shipping and the handling of the containers.)


I understand and concur, but still don't see the difference between
refilling a coke bottle and refilling a beer bottle, that would make
the one economically viable and the other one not.

The residual alcohol in beer kills all the badness. All the beer company
has to do is shake out the obvious cigarette butts.

The Coke company has to autoclave their bottles so our precious snowflakes
won't contract Chastic Fibrosis (a disease usually found in foxes).

Bottom line: It's for the children.

I would like to add that beer is usually too weak to kill the HIV-1
virus, while undiluted wine is usually strong enough to do so - and that
HIV-1 appears to me to be a virus likely on the delicate side in this
area.

(Not that I know whether many human-infecting bacteria survive being
soaked in beer in beer bottles. I do know that germs have a high rate of
survival of the typically-fractional-percent alcohol content of
bloodstream and serum of humans that survive "tanking up" even to extent
of "tipsy" or "stumbling / slurring-speech".)

- Don Klipstein )

In article , HeyBub wrote:
Don Klipstein wrote:
In article , HeyBub
wrote:
Don Klipstein wrote:
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?

I guess it depends on how you define "insurance."

In the military, if you get slightly injured (anything less than the
bone sticking out), the medic or the corpsman fixes you up. This is
not much different than the role of the company nurse.

And if they get an illness requiring treatment, they get treated.
These people have medics and corpsmen and do get transported to
hospitals when it is necessary and possible to do so. They are not
among the uncovered roughly 13% of USA's population that are citizens
or legal residents.


They ARE among the 45 million who do not have health insurance.

Once again, absence of health insurance is not the same as absence of health
care. The scare-mongering politicians have NEVER said we have 45 million
people who do not have access to health care.

Maybe I need to clarify: About 12-13% of USA's population is citizens
and legal residents not covered by even so much as what soldiers have.

Roughly 38 million USA citizens and legal residents are "self pay",
with hospital bills roughly quadruple of allowable hospital billing
to Americans (and "coverers" thereof) who obtain "coverage".

Many of these Americans are ones taking their chances at betting on
"which is the least evil" of evils that include at least one
certainly-unaffordable and another only-possibly-bankrupting.

Please keep in kind others saying in this thread how their family costs
$13K annually for private sector healthcare coverage, while professing to
desire "keep gubmint out of it", while USA gubmint spends as high a
percentage of GDP on gubmint spending on healthcare as Canada and most
other industrialized democracies do.

Who wants to maintain American gubmint spending as high a percentage of
GDP on healthcare as Canada has while in addition having private sector
spending $13K for coverage of 1 family that inflates at roughly 10%
annually, in the "name of" "Keep Gubmint out of this"? I do concede that
some and many-influential Americans want such ...

Makes me want to find a way to move to Canada, though someone I would be
married to (under law of all of Canada and a few USA "states") is
unwilling to be uprooted from a metropolitan area where he has family
ties.

- Don Klipstein )