In message 486ac430@qaanaaq, Andy Hall writes
On 2008-07-02 00:49:24 +0100, geoff said:

In message 486ab475@qaanaaq, Andy Hall writes
- Reduction in tax take specifically targeted where individuals
spend money on healthcare is not a general subsidy.
- Some individuals who previously would not have purchased health
insurance can now do so
"can" being the operative word

Of course. Not all would wish or be able to take it up.

exactly - so what happens when they get ill or need a filling?


--
geoff

On 2008-07-02 02:23:24 +0100, geoff said:

In message 486ac430@qaanaaq, Andy Hall writes
On 2008-07-02 00:49:24 +0100, geoff said:

In message 486ab475@qaanaaq, Andy Hall writes
- Reduction in tax take specifically targeted where individuals spend
money on healthcare is not a general subsidy.
- Some individuals who previously would not have purchased health
insurance can now do so
"can" being the operative word

Of course. Not all would wish or be able to take it up.

exactly - so what happens when they get ill or need a filling?

They would have more/faster access than they do today because fewer
people would be using it.

The message
from geoff contains these words:

In message 486ac430@qaanaaq, Andy Hall writes
On 2008-07-02 00:49:24 +0100, geoff said:

In message 486ab475@qaanaaq, Andy Hall writes
- Reduction in tax take specifically targeted where individuals
spend money on healthcare is not a general subsidy.
- Some individuals who previously would not have purchased health
insurance can now do so
"can" being the operative word

Of course. Not all would wish or be able to take it up.

exactly - so what happens when they get ill or need a filling?

Turned breakfast telly on this am in the middle of an item on NHS
dentistry and the very first words I heard were that extractions were up
by 57% and complex care well down. QED?

--
Roger Chapman

On 2008-07-02 08:16:17 +0100, Roger said:

The message
from geoff contains these words:

In message 486ac430@qaanaaq, Andy Hall writes
On 2008-07-02 00:49:24 +0100, geoff said:

In message 486ab475@qaanaaq, Andy Hall writes
- Reduction in tax take specifically targeted where individuals
spend money on healthcare is not a general subsidy.
- Some individuals who previously would not have purchased health
insurance can now do so
"can" being the operative word

Of course. Not all would wish or be able to take it up.

exactly - so what happens when they get ill or need a filling?

Turned breakfast telly on this am in the middle of an item on NHS
dentistry and the very first words I heard were that extractions were up
by 57% and complex care well down. QED?

QED. Dentists are not being paid at the level at which they can do a
proper job and do not want to work in salaried or "salaried"
arrangement.

The government has screwed up. Pure and simple. This is why I hope
that this begins the debate on the NHS pulling out of dentistry
delivery altogether as a model for it eventually being dismantled
altogether.

"Huge" wrote in message
...
On 2008-06-30, Bob Mannix wrote:
"stuart noble" wrote in message
...

Selective aren't we?

The free market is wonderful until it isn't. Free-marketeers conveniently
overlook this fact as it spoils their world view.

You haven't the vaguest idea what a free market is. The State went after
eBay
because it's easier than finding and prosecuting the real criminals -
those who
sell counterfeit goods.

Can't quite see the connection - I agree with the second part. My point was
that the result of the free market is (often) for example, domination of the
marketplace by one supplier (Tesco, MS or whoever, because they have done it
better) at which point people suddenly get up in arms about their "dominant
market position". If one player beats all the others and they go out of
business, and the one becomes a virtual monopoly, that is the free market in
operation - why penalise such a successful operator? It's hypocritical. A
truly free market would have no concept of conterfeiting or trademark
registration or any other form of protection - you buy from a seller and
your contract, and any problems, are between the two of you. The market will
decide. I'm not in favour of it, but I believe some people profess to be
until they perceive they have a problem.


--
Bob Mannix
(anti-spam is as easy as 1-2-3 - not)


--
"Be thankful that you have a life, and forsake your vain
and presumptuous desire for a second one."
[email me at huge {at} huge (dot) org dot uk]

"Bob Mannix" wrote in message
...

... My point was that the result of the free market is (often) for
example, domination of the marketplace by one supplier (Tesco, MS or
whoever, because they have done it better) at which point people suddenly
get up in arms about their "dominant market position". If one player beats
all the others and they go out of business, and the one becomes a virtual
monopoly, that is the free market in operation - why penalise such a
successful operator? It's hypocritical. A truly free market would have no
concept of conterfeiting or trademark registration or any other form of
protection - you buy from a seller and your contract, and any problems,
are between the two of you. The market will decide. I'm not in favour of
it, but I believe some people profess to be until they perceive they have
a problem.

I tend to agree with that. When a new Tesco is built people say how
dreadful - but they shop there (I don't but that's another matter). When a
new motorway is planned people say how dreadful - and they use it.

there's nowt so queer as folks.

Mary

Bob Mannix wrote:
My point was
that the result of the free market is (often) for example, domination of the
marketplace by one supplier (Tesco, MS or whoever, because they have done it
better)

Not necessarily better at all. In competition wars of this type all it
takes is deep pockets. Supermarkets forced all local shops to close by
undercutting their profits: Now they are more expensive than many local
shops for many things.

The free market doesn't work when you have a monopoly, which is why
there is legislation about such. Ditto cartels, but they are harder to spot.



at which point people suddenly get up in arms about their "dominant
market position". If one player beats all the others and they go out of
business, and the one becomes a virtual monopoly, that is the free market in
operation - why penalise such a successful operator?

Because it give them de facto licence to hold their customers to ransom.
The socially beneficial effects of a free market depend on competition
and customer choice.



It's hypocritical. A
truly free market would have no concept of conterfeiting or trademark
registration or any other form of protection - you buy from a seller and
your contract, and any problems, are between the two of you. The market will
decide. I'm not in favour of it, but I believe some people profess to be
until they perceive they have a problem.


That one goes way back to the guilds and trades unions.

Why spend years developing a better mousetrap, if all that happens is it
get copied instantly?

Such practices stifle innovation, within a capitalist society.


The ideal balance is to give incentives to innovation and efficiency, by
allowing better products to be protected and have free access to
markets, and prevent monopolies/cartels on the one hand and
counterfeiting on the other.

Now I WAS considering referring the NHS to the monopolies and mergers
commission..

Surely a state run monopoly is against EU law?

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
Bob Mannix wrote:
My point was that the result of the free market is (often) for example,
domination of the marketplace by one supplier (Tesco, MS or whoever,
because they have done it better)

Not necessarily better at all. In competition wars of this type all it
takes is deep pockets. Supermarkets forced all local shops to close by
undercutting their profits: Now they are more expensive than many local
shops for many things.

You use a narrow version of "better". I meant "better" (ie more successful)
at operating in a free market


The free market doesn't work when you have a monopoly, which is why there
is legislation about such. Ditto cartels, but they are harder to spot.

It's not the "free market doesn't work when...", it's "the free market
doesn't work..." as doing it "better" so that all your competitors fail and
then having an authority do something about it renders the market not
"free".




at which point people suddenly get up in arms about their "dominant market
position". If one player beats all the others and they go out of business,
and the one becomes a virtual monopoly, that is the free market in
operation - why penalise such a successful operator?

Because it give them de facto licence to hold their customers to ransom.
The socially beneficial effects of a free market depend on competition and
customer choice.


Exactly - it's no longer "free", it's *judged* and controlled according to
its socially beneficial effects (but its *drivers* are profit).


It's hypocritical. A
truly free market would have no concept of conterfeiting or trademark
registration or any other form of protection - you buy from a seller and
your contract, and any problems, are between the two of you. The market
will decide. I'm not in favour of it, but I believe some people profess
to be until they perceive they have a problem.


That one goes way back to the guilds and trades unions.

Why spend years developing a better mousetrap, if all that happens is it
get copied instantly?

In a truly *free* market you wouldn't unless you could turn a quick profit.


Such practices stifle innovation, within a capitalist society.


The ideal balance is to give incentives to innovation and efficiency, by
allowing better products to be protected and have free access to markets,
and prevent monopolies/cartels on the one hand and counterfeiting on the
other.


I don't disagree with any of that. My point was it is NOT a free market and
it is right that it is NOT a free market and those who go blathering on
about how we need a free market are hypocrites and self-delusionists who
have latched on to the label as a cure-all but who complain like anybody
else when the "free" part of free market bites them and suddenly want it not
free!


--
Bob Mannix
(anti-spam is as easy as 1-2-3 - not)

On Tue, 1 Jul 2008 23:16:09 +0100, "Tim Ward"
wrote:

But I really do like
the limited liability bit, my house isn't automatically on the line if I
make a little mistake at work.

Thats not actually true according to my pet lawyer. In order to
protect your house you have to get public liability insurance

Anna
--

~ ~ Anna Kettle, Suffolk, England
|""""| ~ Lime plaster repair and conservation
/ ^^ \ // Freehand modelling in lime: overmantels, pargeting etc
|_____ / www.kettlenet.co.uk

"Anna Kettle" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 1 Jul 2008 23:16:09 +0100, "Tim Ward"
wrote:

But I really do like
the limited liability bit, my house isn't automatically on the line if I
make a little mistake at work.

Thats not actually true according to my pet lawyer. In order to
protect your house you have to get public liability insurance


I concur, I believe all your assets are fair game. You might avoid
significant risk with no PLI if you design web pages but not if you are a
handyman. I was looking into it recently.


--
Bob Mannix
(anti-spam is as easy as 1-2-3 - not)

In article ,
Bob Eager wrote:
On Thu, 26 Jun 2008 12:46:41 UTC, "Clive George"
wrote:
[45 lines of utterly useless quoted text]
[3 lines of arguably useful quoted text but with overly long lines]
[4 lines of quoted signature]
[erroneously quoted blank line]

It still clogs up every followup. [...]

You're posting dozens of lines of useless junk and complaining about
people `clogging up' the newsgroup ?

I agree that people should use a proper sig separator, of course.
But please remove the beam from your own eye.

--
Ian Jackson personal email:
These opinions are my own. http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~ijackson/
PGP2 key 1024R/0x23f5addb, fingerprint 5906F687 BD03ACAD 0D8E602E FCF37657

On 2008-07-02 10:11:24 +0100, The Natural Philosopher said:
WAS considering referring the NHS to the monopolies and mergers commission..

Surely a state run monopoly is against EU law?

Good idea.


Mind you, you would probably be asked to keep voting on that until you
changed your mind

Bob Mannix wrote on 02/07/2008 13:24
"Anna Kettle" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 1 Jul 2008 23:16:09 +0100, "Tim Ward"
wrote:

But I really do like
the limited liability bit, my house isn't automatically on the line if I
make a little mistake at work.
Thats not actually true according to my pet lawyer. In order to
protect your house you have to get public liability insurance

I concur, I believe all your assets are fair game. You might avoid
significant risk with no PLI if you design web pages but not if you are a
handyman. I was looking into it recently.


I'm surprised to hear that (though it doesn't affect me personally). So
if an employee of Joe Bloggs Ltd makes a trivial typo while contracting
for BNFL, and the North West of England becomes uninhabitable for 1000
years, how does the liability for the mistake move from Joe Bloggs Ltd
to its owner? And if it does, what does "limited liability" actually mean?

S.

Bob Mannix wrote:
"Anna Kettle" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 1 Jul 2008 23:16:09 +0100, "Tim Ward"
wrote:

But I really do like
the limited liability bit, my house isn't automatically on the line if I
make a little mistake at work.
Thats not actually true according to my pet lawyer. In order to
protect your house you have to get public liability insurance


I concur, I believe all your assets are fair game. You might avoid
significant risk with no PLI if you design web pages but not if you are a
handyman. I was looking into it recently.

Depends a bit on the circumstances. It used to be many years ago a Ltd
liability company was like a teflon coating - the operators were almost
invulnerable regardless of how dodgy their actions. Needless to say this
was abused for all sorts of crooked practice and the protection was made
much less bulletproof. Having said that, I believe that they would still
need to demonstrate that the company directors acted negligently or with
malign intent to look past the company to them personally for compensation.

--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

On Wed, 02 Jul 2008 14:34:38 +0100, Simon Morris
wrote:

Bob Mannix wrote on 02/07/2008 13:24
"Anna Kettle" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 1 Jul 2008 23:16:09 +0100, "Tim Ward"
wrote:

But I really do like
the limited liability bit, my house isn't automatically on the line
if I
make a little mistake at work.
Thats not actually true according to my pet lawyer. In order to
protect your house you have to get public liability insurance

I concur, I believe all your assets are fair game. You might avoid
significant risk with no PLI if you design web pages but not if you are
a handyman. I was looking into it recently.


I'm surprised to hear that (though it doesn't affect me personally). So
if an employee of Joe Bloggs Ltd makes a trivial typo while contracting
for BNFL, and the North West of England becomes uninhabitable for 1000
years, how does the liability for the mistake move from Joe Bloggs Ltd
to its owner? And if it does, what does "limited liability" actually
mean?

S.

Well if the NOrthWest becomes uninhabitable for 1000 years that's not
really trivial.

Duncan Wood wrote on 02/07/2008 15:01
On Wed, 02 Jul 2008 14:34:38 +0100, Simon Morris
wrote:

"Anna Kettle" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 1 Jul 2008 23:16:09 +0100, "Tim Ward"
wrote:

But I really do like
the limited liability bit, my house isn't automatically on the line
if I make a little mistake at work.
Thats not actually true according to my pet lawyer. In order to
protect your house you have to get public liability insurance


I'm surprised to hear that (though it doesn't affect me personally).
So if an employee of Joe Bloggs Ltd makes a trivial typo while
contracting for BNFL, and the North West of England becomes
uninhabitable for 1000 years, how does the liability for the mistake
move from Joe Bloggs Ltd to its owner? And if it does, what does
"limited liability" actually mean?

Well if the NorthWest becomes uninhabitable for 1000 years that's not
really trivial.

Tell that to a southerner. But I digress: the typo might be trivial, but
the consequences might not be. Anyway, thanks to John Rumm for
suggesting an approximate answer to my question.

S.

"Tony Bryer" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 2 Jul 2008 10:04:02 +0100 Mary Fisher wrote :
I tend to agree with that. When a new Tesco is built people say how
dreadful - but they shop there

Yes, standard planning objections to all new large retail development
round he

1. No one wants it.

2. All the people using it will lead to traffic chaos.

LOL!

Mary

In message , at 16:31:20 on Wed, 2
Jul 2008, Tony Bryer remarked:
I tend to agree with that. When a new Tesco is built people say how
dreadful - but they shop there

Yes, standard planning objections to all new large retail development
round he

1. No one wants it.

2. All the people using it will lead to traffic chaos.

But don't forget that if the traffic gets *too* bad, no-one will shop
there any more.
--
Roland Perry

"Anna Kettle" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 1 Jul 2008 23:16:09 +0100, "Tim Ward"
wrote:

But I really do like
the limited liability bit, my house isn't automatically on the line if I
make a little mistake at work.

Thats not actually true according to my pet lawyer. In order to
protect your house you have to get public liability insurance

Sorry, the company does of course have public liability insurance as
necessary, it's more the genuine professional error of judgement type of
mistake I was thinking of, not the consequences of criminal behaviour which
I do know the company doesn't necessarily always entirely shield me from.

--
Tim Ward - posting as an individual unless otherwise clear
Brett Ward Limited - www.brettward.co.uk
Cambridge Accommodation Notice Board - www.brettward.co.uk/canb
Cambridge City Councillor

On Wed, 2 Jul 2008 10:04:02 +0100 Mary Fisher wrote :
I tend to agree with that. When a new Tesco is built people say how
dreadful - but they shop there

Yes, standard planning objections to all new large retail development
round he

1. No one wants it.

2. All the people using it will lead to traffic chaos.

--
Tony Bryer SDA UK 'Software to build on' http://www.sda.co.uk

Roland Perry wrote:

In message , at 16:31:20 on Wed, 2
Jul 2008, Tony Bryer remarked:
I tend to agree with that. When a new Tesco is built people say how
dreadful - but they shop there

Yes, standard planning objections to all new large retail development
round he

1. No one wants it.

2. All the people using it will lead to traffic chaos.

But don't forget that if the traffic gets *too* bad, no-one will shop
there any more.


That simply isn't true.

If the congestion reaches unacceptable levels, some people will begin
to shop elsewhere. That will reduce the congestion.

If some people then return to shopping at Tesco, the congestion will
increase. And then some other people will begin to shop elsewhere.

The cycle continues until a sort of equilibrium is achieved, and the
congestion is just about acceptable.

It's a bit like a journey to work in a congested town or city. You
might have two or three alternative routes. When one gets congested,
people switch to an alternative route. Those alternative routes then
get congested, and some people switch back.

It is self regulating to the extent that journey times using the
various alternative routes will all tend to a very similar value.

"Mary Fisher" writes:


I tend to agree with that. When a new Tesco is built people say how
dreadful - but they shop there (I don't but that's another matter). When a
new motorway is planned people say how dreadful - and they use it.

there's nowt so queer as folks.

Well - it sort of understandable. Once something is there you probably
acheive little by refusing to shop there (I suppose if everyone
did....). I don't especially want a new Tesco in Cambridge, but if
there's one there I may well pop in from time to time to pick things up
if it's more or less on a route that I travel anyway.

(Why is this cross-posted to uk.d-i-y ?)

(Anna Kettle) writes:

On Tue, 1 Jul 2008 23:16:09 +0100, "Tim Ward"
wrote:

But I really do like
the limited liability bit, my house isn't automatically on the line if I
make a little mistake at work.

Thats not actually true according to my pet lawyer. In order to
protect your house you have to get public liability insurance

It really depends. If you have a limited liability company then the
directors (and hence their assets) are potentialy on the line in cases
of negligence or fraud. Otherwise they're not (unless e.g. you
personally guarantee the debts of the company).

In message , at 17:44:56 on
Wed, 2 Jul 2008, Bruce remarked:
I tend to agree with that. When a new Tesco is built people say how
dreadful - but they shop there

Yes, standard planning objections to all new large retail development
round he

1. No one wants it.

2. All the people using it will lead to traffic chaos.

But don't forget that if the traffic gets *too* bad, no-one will shop
there any more.

That simply isn't true.

whoosh!!
--
Roland Perry

In message , at 17:57:58 on Wed, 2 Jul 2008,
Paul Rudin remarked:
(Why is this cross-posted to uk.d-i-y ?)

You are asking that question approximately 1,020 postings too late.
--
Roland Perry

"Roland Perry" wrote in message
...
In message , at 16:31:20 on Wed, 2
Jul 2008, Tony Bryer remarked:
I tend to agree with that. When a new Tesco is built people say how
dreadful - but they shop there

Yes, standard planning objections to all new large retail development
round he

1. No one wants it.

2. All the people using it will lead to traffic chaos.

But don't forget that if the traffic gets *too* bad, no-one will shop
there any more.

Don't bet on it.

In message , at 19:40:45
on Wed, 2 Jul 2008, Mary Fisher remarked:
I tend to agree with that. When a new Tesco is built people say how
dreadful - but they shop there

Yes, standard planning objections to all new large retail development
round he

1. No one wants it.

2. All the people using it will lead to traffic chaos.

But don't forget that if the traffic gets *too* bad, no-one will shop
there any more.

Don't bet on it.

Whoosh (again).
--
Roland Perry

On 02 Jul 2008 13:28:47 +0100 (BST), Ian Jackson
wrote:

I agree that people should use a proper sig separator, of course.

OOI, what application do you use for newsgroups? If you have a post to
reply to which has an "official" signature, presumably you don't see
it when you compose a reply. When you have just the name typed at the
end, surely you do. And if you're bottom-posting, surely you will snip
it when you see it. It's not very hard.

You might be surprised at how many people in other groups prefer to
type their name. It's not uncommon. Just the name, no links, no
irrelevant quotes, no other data. There's no point in insisting that
"that's the way it's done" when experience will tell you that there
are many places where it is. What about people who don't use a sig
file at all? Do you object to that? And what if one of those people
who doesn't normally use one then decides to append their name?

Frankly I think anyone who finds that offensive or can't cope is
anally-retentive (with or without hyphen)

Linda ff

Simon Morris wrote:
Bob Mannix wrote on 02/07/2008 13:24
"Anna Kettle" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 1 Jul 2008 23:16:09 +0100, "Tim Ward"
wrote:

But I really do like
the limited liability bit, my house isn't automatically on the line
if I
make a little mistake at work.
Thats not actually true according to my pet lawyer. In order to
protect your house you have to get public liability insurance

I concur, I believe all your assets are fair game. You might avoid
significant risk with no PLI if you design web pages but not if you
are a handyman. I was looking into it recently.


I'm surprised to hear that (though it doesn't affect me personally). So
if an employee of Joe Bloggs Ltd makes a trivial typo while contracting
for BNFL, and the North West of England becomes uninhabitable for 1000
years, how does the liability for the mistake move from Joe Bloggs Ltd
to its owner? And if it does, what does "limited liability" actually mean?


It never does.

A Limited Liability company is a legal entity that never dies, until its
formally killed.

It has almost as many rights as a human being, and a lot less
responsibility.

Its liabilities with respect to debt are limited to the company assets.

Whilst actions against the individuals that control it may succeed on
the grounds of negligence, few will extend to the assets of that
individual. Unless they can be shown to have defrauded the COMPANY of
those assets.

S.

Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 16:31:20 on Wed, 2
Jul 2008, Tony Bryer remarked:
I tend to agree with that. When a new Tesco is built people say how
dreadful - but they shop there

Yes, standard planning objections to all new large retail development
round he

1. No one wants it.

2. All the people using it will lead to traffic chaos.

But don't forget that if the traffic gets *too* bad, no-one will shop
there any more.
Like Cambridge?