On 30/06/16 15:37, James Wilkinson wrote:
On Thu, 30 Jun 2016 15:00:50 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

On 30/06/16 14:57, James Wilkinson wrote:
If I didn't want Ebola I'd pay for the immunisation.

There is no immunisation. its the early stages of vaccines that may
possibly work on some strains.

http://www.cdc.gov/vhf/ebola/strive/qa.html

****, but you are stupid.

If there is no immunisation, this argument is pointless. You might
aswell say the NHS helps stop the spread of aids.

Once again your lack of intelligence reveals itself.

Have you ever heard of quarantine?



--
"Socialist governments traditionally do make a financial mess. They
always run out of other people's money. It's quite a characteristic of them"

Margaret Thatcher

On 30/06/16 16:07, James Wilkinson wrote:
On Thu, 30 Jun 2016 15:50:24 +0100, dennis@home
wrote:

On 30/06/2016 15:37, James Wilkinson wrote:
On Thu, 30 Jun 2016 15:00:50 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

On 30/06/16 14:57, James Wilkinson wrote:
If I didn't want Ebola I'd pay for the immunisation.

There is no immunisation. its the early stages of vaccines that may
possibly work on some strains.

http://www.cdc.gov/vhf/ebola/strive/qa.html

****, but you are stupid.

If there is no immunisation, this argument is pointless. You might
aswell say the NHS helps stop the spread of aids.


You need to look up the difference between treatment and vaccination.

I know what they mean. What is your point? Do you think people with
Ebola and no NHS would just wander around infecting everyone?

Well if you look at the reality in Africa well yes, that is exactly how
it spreads.

And AIDS too.


--
Karl Marx said religion is the opium of the people.
But Marxism is the crack cocaine.

On Thu, 30 Jun 2016 18:01:51 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

On 30/06/16 16:07, James Wilkinson wrote:
On Thu, 30 Jun 2016 15:50:24 +0100, dennis@home
wrote:

On 30/06/2016 15:37, James Wilkinson wrote:
On Thu, 30 Jun 2016 15:00:50 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

On 30/06/16 14:57, James Wilkinson wrote:
If I didn't want Ebola I'd pay for the immunisation.

There is no immunisation. its the early stages of vaccines that may
possibly work on some strains.

http://www.cdc.gov/vhf/ebola/strive/qa.html

****, but you are stupid.

If there is no immunisation, this argument is pointless. You might
aswell say the NHS helps stop the spread of aids.


You need to look up the difference between treatment and vaccination..

I know what they mean. What is your point? Do you think people with
Ebola and no NHS would just wander around infecting everyone?

Well if you look at the reality in Africa well yes, that is exactly how
it spreads.

And AIDS too.

Works in USA without NHS.

--
If you own a £3,000 machine gun and a £5,000 rocket launcher, but you can't afford shoes, you may be a Muslim.

"James Wilkinson" wrote in message
news
On Thu, 30 Jun 2016 09:42:35 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

On 30/06/16 01:34, James Wilkinson wrote:
On Wed, 29 Jun 2016 04:24:23 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

On 28/06/16 22:22, James Wilkinson wrote:
On Tue, 28 Jun 2016 21:44:16 +0100, polygonum
wrote:

On 28/06/2016 21:30, James Wilkinson wrote:
On Tue, 28 Jun 2016 21:24:21 +0100, dennis@home

wrote:

http://www.diabetes.co.uk/news/2016/...-91537224.html




The NHS is a drain on our taxes and should be closed down.

Are you going to fund all your health needs out of your own cash?

Are you going to buy an insurance policy that covers all your health
needs?

Whichever, have you any idea how much it will cost you in actual
money
terms?

In my entire life, the only thing the NHS fixed for me was a couple of
broken bones. That's a lot less than my tax contributions to the NHS.
I would much rather have paid for the bones from my own pocket.

Well so far a double hernia, testicular cancer and two heart
operations,
I think I'm about evens ;-)

So basically I've paid for your testicle problems. You think that's
right?!?

You haven't, because I've paid three times over for all of that.

Why would you have done that?

Because that is what the law required him to do.

whisky-dave wrote
James Wilkinson wrote
polygonum wrote
James Wilkinson wrote
dennis@home wrote

http://www.diabetes.co.uk/news/2016/...-91537224.html

The NHS is a drain on our taxes and should be closed down.

Are you going to fund all your health needs out of your own cash?

Are you going to buy an insurance policy that covers all your health
needs?

Whichever, have you any idea how much it will cost you in actual money
terms?

In my entire life, the only thing the NHS fixed for me was a couple of
broken bones. That's a lot less than my tax contributions to the NHS.
I would much rather have paid for the bones from my own pocket.

So you've never had any antiboitics,

Makes a lot more sense to pay for stuff like that out of your own pocket.

what do you tbin k would have happened if the
nurse or anyone that had ebola and not treated.

The reason you don;lt get some diesease is
because other have them treated on the NHS.

On 30/06/2016 15:37, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
James Wilkinson wrote:
On Wed, 29 Jun 2016 14:02:18 +0100, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

In article ,
James Wilkinson wrote:
In my entire life, the only thing the NHS fixed for me was a couple of
broken bones. That's a lot less than my tax contributions to the NHS.
I would much rather have paid for the bones from my own pocket.

Right. One of those eternal optimists. No house insurance either?

Only buildings to shut the mortgage lender up.

Like the lottery, the odds are always against you. The insurance
company makes money. If you don't get anything insured, you're much
better off, and can afford the odd mishap.

Not like the lottery. You play the lottery hoping to get a windfall. You
insure against being hit by a windfall.

If you have enough money to pay for your house being destroyed by fire
etc, no need to have insurance.

Very few indeed have enough money to pay for a possible third party claim
after a motor accident - hence the compulsory insurance.

Doesn't need a degree in rocket science to work out. Just ask your parrot
if you're unsure.

But it helps if you appreciate that the trivial amounts of tax and NI
paid by the majority of people does not in anyway cover the costs
of the NHS, nor all the free education that their kids receive.

And for people over 65 it is even worse, massively so for the 83+
group. The latter were all retired by the time that Gordon started
hosing money at the NHS in 2001, increasing its budget 5 fold (but
with no matching increase in effectiveness). But they enjoyed huge
tax cuts during their working years prior to 1997, and their houses
went up 100 times in value, but they have paid *none* of the extra
NI charges.

These people are now the biggest cost on the NHS even if they don't
contract Cancer. So who should pay the £200,000 cost of Cancer
treatment for for them ?. Their lifetimes tax and NI definately doesn't
cover even a fraction of the cost.

We are still borrowing £75 Billion every year (down from £150
Billion a year in 2010). So that means todays pensioners and
parents are borrowing money from future generations, who don't
yet have the vote and may not even be born yet.

No other country in the *entire* world has a health care system
which requires absolutely no payment at the point of use. There
is a reason for this - it's impossible to do it. Without some
form of payment (or limited free access) at the point of use, the
users have no idea what it really costs.

On 28/06/2016 22:23, James Wilkinson wrote:
On Tue, 28 Jun 2016 21:44:16 +0100, polygonum
wrote:

On 28/06/2016 21:30, James Wilkinson wrote:
On Tue, 28 Jun 2016 21:24:21 +0100, dennis@home
wrote:

http://www.diabetes.co.uk/news/2016/...-91537224.html



The NHS is a drain on our taxes and should be closed down.

Are you going to fund all your health needs out of your own cash?

Are you going to buy an insurance policy that covers all your health
needs?

Whichever, have you any idea how much it will cost you in actual money
terms?

The NHS is basically a compulsory health insurance, and a ****ty one at
that. Insurance should never be compulsory.

If only.

Are there any other forms of insurance where the premiums are directly
proportional to the income of the insured ?, and where huge swathes
of the population are effectively excused from paying premiums, never
lose their no-claims bonus and are usually the ones making the biggest
and most frequent claims ?.


The only way to sort out the NHS is Scrap employers NI and combine it
with tax. This will immediately stop people over 65 with incomes in
excess of average wages (and there are lots) from avoiding NI. Why
should this group expect to live another 30 years and still get free
NHS and pay nothing for it ?.

That and only allow 2 free GP visits per year. Guarantee same day
appointments for these first 2 visits, then pay for the rest. Pay
more if you still want a same-day appointment.

Stop all free prescriptions. Totally. The NHS already arranges
massive discounts on most drugs, there is no need to hand the
stuff out free as well.

"James Wilkinson" wrote in message
news
On Thu, 30 Jun 2016 13:40:21 +0100, whisky-dave
wrote:

On Tuesday, 28 June 2016 22:22:32 UTC+1, James Wilkinson wrote:
On Tue, 28 Jun 2016 21:44:16 +0100, polygonum
wrote:

On 28/06/2016 21:30, James Wilkinson wrote:
On Tue, 28 Jun 2016 21:24:21 +0100, dennis@home

wrote:

http://www.diabetes.co.uk/news/2016/...-91537224.html


The NHS is a drain on our taxes and should be closed down.

Are you going to fund all your health needs out of your own cash?

Are you going to buy an insurance policy that covers all your health
needs?

Whichever, have you any idea how much it will cost you in actual money
terms?

In my entire life, the only thing the NHS fixed for me was a couple of
broken bones. That's a lot less than my tax contributions to the NHS.
I would much rather have paid for the bones from my own pocket.

So you've never had any antiboitics,

Not that I needed, no. They used to give them to kids with a cold.

What do you tbin k would have happened if the nurse or anyone that had
ebola and not treated.
The reason you don;lt get some diesease is because other have them
treated on the NHS.

If I didn't want Ebola I'd pay for the immunisation.

There is no ebola vaccine.

"James Wilkinson" wrote in message
news
On Thu, 30 Jun 2016 15:00:50 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

On 30/06/16 14:57, James Wilkinson wrote:
If I didn't want Ebola I'd pay for the immunisation.

There is no immunisation. its the early stages of vaccines that may
possibly work on some strains.

http://www.cdc.gov/vhf/ebola/strive/qa.html

****, but you are stupid.

If there is no immunisation, this argument is pointless.

Nope. When someone comes back from africa with ebola
and the NHS stops them from spreading that disease, the
NHS has a useful function that wouldn't happen without it.

You might aswell say the NHS helps stop the spread of aids.

It does when those with it get treated and don't spread it.

"James Wilkinson" wrote in message
news
On Thu, 30 Jun 2016 15:50:24 +0100, dennis@home
wrote:

On 30/06/2016 15:37, James Wilkinson wrote:
On Thu, 30 Jun 2016 15:00:50 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

On 30/06/16 14:57, James Wilkinson wrote:
If I didn't want Ebola I'd pay for the immunisation.

There is no immunisation. its the early stages of vaccines that may
possibly work on some strains.

http://www.cdc.gov/vhf/ebola/strive/qa.html

****, but you are stupid.

If there is no immunisation, this argument is pointless. You might
aswell say the NHS helps stop the spread of aids.


You need to look up the difference between treatment and vaccination.

I know what they mean. What is your point? Do you think people with
Ebola and no NHS would just wander around infecting everyone?

They obviously would if they couldn't afford the cost of treating it
themselves
and few could to that with something like ebola because it is very expensive
to treat if you need to pay those providing the treatment.

On Thu, 30 Jun 2016 19:53:45 +0100, Andrew wrote:

On 28/06/2016 22:23, James Wilkinson wrote:
On Tue, 28 Jun 2016 21:44:16 +0100, polygonum
wrote:

On 28/06/2016 21:30, James Wilkinson wrote:
On Tue, 28 Jun 2016 21:24:21 +0100, dennis@home
wrote:

http://www.diabetes.co.uk/news/2016/...-91537224.html



The NHS is a drain on our taxes and should be closed down.

Are you going to fund all your health needs out of your own cash?

Are you going to buy an insurance policy that covers all your health
needs?

Whichever, have you any idea how much it will cost you in actual money
terms?

The NHS is basically a compulsory health insurance, and a ****ty one at
that. Insurance should never be compulsory.

If only.

Are there any other forms of insurance where the premiums are directly
proportional to the income of the insured ?, and where huge swathes
of the population are effectively excused from paying premiums, never
lose their no-claims bonus and are usually the ones making the biggest
and most frequent claims ?.


The only way to sort out the NHS is Scrap employers NI and combine it
with tax. This will immediately stop people over 65 with incomes in
excess of average wages (and there are lots) from avoiding NI. Why
should this group expect to live another 30 years and still get free
NHS and pay nothing for it ?.

That and only allow 2 free GP visits per year. Guarantee same day
appointments for these first 2 visits, then pay for the rest. Pay
more if you still want a same-day appointment.

Stop all free prescriptions. Totally. The NHS already arranges
massive discounts on most drugs, there is no need to hand the
stuff out free as well.

Easier just to make people pay for the service as and when they need it.

--
If space is a vacuum, who changes the bags?

"James Wilkinson" wrote in message
news
On Thu, 30 Jun 2016 15:37:40 +0100, Dave Plowman (News)
wrote:

In article ,
James Wilkinson wrote:
On Wed, 29 Jun 2016 14:02:18 +0100, Dave Plowman (News)
wrote:

In article ,
James Wilkinson wrote:
In my entire life, the only thing the NHS fixed for me was a couple
of
broken bones. That's a lot less than my tax contributions to the
NHS.
I would much rather have paid for the bones from my own pocket.

Right. One of those eternal optimists. No house insurance either?

Only buildings to shut the mortgage lender up.

Like the lottery, the odds are always against you. The insurance
company makes money. If you don't get anything insured, you're much
better off, and can afford the odd mishap.

Not like the lottery. You play the lottery hoping to get a windfall. You
insure against being hit by a windfall.

So exactly the same. Both involve paying money into something on the
slight offchance of something happening. Sensible people realise you
shouldn't bother with the unlikely.

If you have enough money to pay for your house being destroyed by fire
etc, no need to have insurance.

Not likely for the whole thing to be destroyed.

Very few indeed have enough money to pay for a possible third party claim
after a motor accident - hence the compulsory insurance.

They shouldn't have to pay. Why not make it everyone pays for their own
car, no matter who is at fault?

Because I'm not interested in having my new car written
off by some stupid clown that can't drive for nuts.

And no, careless drivers couldn't go around destroying hundreds of cars,
they couldn't afford their own to be replaced that often.

Corse they could if they are well paid or are very successful
working for themselves and drive cheap used cars because
they are such hopeless drivers.

James Wilkinson wrote
Rod Speed wrote
James Wilkinson wrote
Dave Liquorice wrote
James Wilkinson wrote

In my entire life, the only thing the NHS fixed for me was a couple of
broken bones.

So you didn't get the arm full of childhood vaccinations?

A hell of a lot of parents think those do more harm than good.

More fool them.

Why?

Because its not a great idea to have one of your kids die of
whooping cough when its so cheap to completely avoid that
possibility, even if you have to pay for the vaccination yourself.

And those who want their kids to have them should pay for them. I don't
have kids and don't want to pay for other kids' vaccinations.

But I bet the state did pay for yours.

I wasn't working at the time.

Bet your parents didn't pay for yours.

You've not been abroad and had vaccinations for the common nasties out
there? (Though some are not available on the NHS, Rabies springs to
mind).

I've been abroad and am not pathetically paranoid. So I didn't get any
vaccinations.

You have never had any NHS prescriptions from a GP, Out patient, In
patient?

Not any that did me any good, no.

You are not registered with a GP? Presumably if you want routine
medical treatment/advice you see a GP as a private patient?

Routine?!? You see a GP routinely?!?

If you need scrapping up off the road which private A&E department
via which private ambulance service are you going to use?

I'll pay for that IF I need it. I don't want to pay for others'
misfortune.

All that for less than £2.80/week

Ah the classic of reducing the timescale to make it look smaller. Sky
TV
do that and tell you what you pay per day.

Class 2 Self Employed (+ Class 4 on
any profits) or £14.10/week Class 3 Voluntary(*). Only a proportion
of those amounts goes to the NHS, Class 2 provides Basic and New
State Pension, Contribution based Employment and Support Allowance,
Maternity Allowance and Bereavement benefits. Class 3 doesn't have
the ESA or Maternity Allwances.

(*) Except that Class 2 at least has been abolished and included in
the Class 4 contributions. The actual cost of the NHS to the
individual is not that much.

Please speak in English.

"James Wilkinson" wrote in message
news
On Thu, 30 Jun 2016 04:40:23 +0100, Rod Speed
wrote:



"James Wilkinson" wrote in message
news
On Wed, 29 Jun 2016 03:01:44 +0100, Rod Speed
wrote:



"dennis@home" wrote in message
web.com...
On 28/06/2016 22:23, James Wilkinson wrote:


The NHS is basically a compulsory health insurance, and a ****ty one
at
that. Insurance should never be compulsory.


I take that aussies don't need car insurance either, eh rod.

I choose not to insure my 10 year old car because it would
be completely trivial to replace it if it did need to be replaced.
Just wave the phone at the point of sale terminal even if I
did replace it with a brand new one.

I only insured it for a couple of years when it was new
because the insurance was so cheap, $100 a year, and
we have lots of illegal immigrants here and it would
have been a bit irritating to have it wiped out by one
of them and to have them **** off back where they
came from. The insurance company kept jacking up
the premium on every renewal, even tho I never made
any claim at all, so I gave them the finger and didn't
bother to renew.

So in Aus you can drive around with no insurance?

No, what we can third party is compulsory, that covers personal injury,
but not the cars involved or what they run into either with property.

So with your "third party", let's say we both have that type of insurance,
and you crashed into me and it's all your fault. Your insurance would pay
for my injuries, but I would have to pay for fixing my car?

You are free to make the other driver pay for fixing your car.

And your injuries would be paid for even if neither of you
had the compulsory third party insurance too, because
there is provision for that situation in the legislation.

And they would be covered by our equivalent of your NHS anyway.

What if you right off another car? Who pays for that other car?

The person who is at fault/caused the accident. If they both
did, they split the cost. If say one of them contributed 10%,
they pay 10% of the cost if the cars arent insured.

So it comes out of your own pocket?

Only if you don't have what we call comprehensive insurance.

That's far too sensible. Over here we have to have insurance to cover the
damage to the other car.

To complicate things even more, we also have a third type of
car insurance, called third party property, which doesn't cover
your own car at all, but does pay for what damage you cause
to other people's cars and for damage to other people's
property, like when for example you come off the road at
speed and demolish or damage their house etc.

If the car that is written off has the voluntary what we call
comprehensive insurance, it pays for that car regardless of
whose fault it is and can in theory recover the cost from the
driver of the other car if that person caused the accident.
In practice they don't normally do any more than demand
that that driver pay for it and do nothing if they get an
obscene gesture from that driver.

"James Wilkinson" wrote in message
news
On Thu, 30 Jun 2016 16:13:45 +0100, dennis@home
wrote:

On 30/06/2016 16:07, James Wilkinson wrote:
On Thu, 30 Jun 2016 15:50:24 +0100, dennis@home
wrote:

On 30/06/2016 15:37, James Wilkinson wrote:
On Thu, 30 Jun 2016 15:00:50 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

On 30/06/16 14:57, James Wilkinson wrote:
If I didn't want Ebola I'd pay for the immunisation.

There is no immunisation. its the early stages of vaccines that may
possibly work on some strains.

http://www.cdc.gov/vhf/ebola/strive/qa.html

****, but you are stupid.

If there is no immunisation, this argument is pointless. You might
aswell say the NHS helps stop the spread of aids.


You need to look up the difference between treatment and vaccination.

I know what they mean. What is your point? Do you think people with
Ebola and no NHS would just wander around infecting everyone?

You do, they can't afford treatment so that's what they do.

Well you could have that paid for by the government, but why should they
pay to fix their broken leg?

Trouble with that approach is how do you decide what the govt pays for ?

Easy enough to decide that the NHS isnt going to pay for cosmetic stuff,
but even that can get tricky. What about kids with ears that look like
open car doors ? Should that be available on the NHS or not ?

"James Wilkinson" wrote in message
news
On Thu, 30 Jun 2016 04:22:16 +0100, Rod Speed
wrote:



"James Wilkinson" wrote in message
news
On Thu, 30 Jun 2016 00:06:22 +0100, Rod Speed
wrote:

dennis@home wrote
James Wilkinson wrote
dennis@home wrote
James Wilkinson wrote

The NHS is basically a compulsory health insurance, and a
****ty one at that. Insurance should never be compulsory.

I take that aussies don't need car insurance either, eh rod.

I'm in Scotland, not Australia. Have you not seen me arguing with
Rod?

I've seen rod arguing with rod.

More of your lies.

And no, we shouldn't have to have car insurance. Just make
everyone pay for the damage to their own car in an accident.

So buy third party insurance then.

No thanks. I prefer to pay for what damage I do.

I'd like to do the same, but it's illegal in the UK.

Our third party insurance is compulsory, but only pays for personal
injury, not damage to the cars or property they run into.

That's the way I'd like it, but it's illegal to do that in the UK. Some
bull**** about you might write off a Ferrari and be unable to pay.

That last is a risk we are free to take.

The problem with the personal injury is that now that is paid for by
the NHS or equivalent anyway, so why have insurance for that now ?

Tho certainly if say you are crippled for life, you can make a case
that there should be insurance to pay the cripple for ending up like that.

"James Wilkinson" wrote in message
news
On Thu, 30 Jun 2016 17:31:32 +0100, dennis@home
wrote:

On 30/06/2016 16:17, James Wilkinson wrote:


That's the way I'd like it, but it's illegal to do that in the UK. Some
bull**** about you might write off a Ferrari and be unable to pay.


That is incorrect, you can write off a ferrari and have to payif you
have RTA insurance. However you would be covered for injuring someone
else.

The minimum insurance you are allowed is "third party" which covers the
Ferrari.

Nope, that is the first or second party.

"James Wilkinson" wrote in message
news
On Thu, 30 Jun 2016 16:30:05 +0100, whisky-dave
wrote:

On Thursday, 30 June 2016 14:57:11 UTC+1, James Wilkinson wrote:
On Thu, 30 Jun 2016 13:40:21 +0100, whisky-dave
wrote:



If I didn't want Ebola I'd pay for the immunisation.

Where would that come from ?

My wallet.

Nope, because there is no ebola vaccination available.

On Thu, 30 Jun 2016 21:19:26 +0100, Rod Speed wrote:



"James Wilkinson" wrote in message
news
On Thu, 30 Jun 2016 16:30:05 +0100, whisky-dave
wrote:

On Thursday, 30 June 2016 14:57:11 UTC+1, James Wilkinson wrote:
On Thu, 30 Jun 2016 13:40:21 +0100, whisky-dave
wrote:



If I didn't want Ebola I'd pay for the immunisation.

Where would that come from ?

My wallet.

Nope, because there is no ebola vaccination available.

Stop picking at straws.

--
Confucius say: "Man who lives in glass house should change in basement."

"James Wilkinson" wrote in message
news
On Thu, 30 Jun 2016 18:01:51 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

On 30/06/16 16:07, James Wilkinson wrote:
On Thu, 30 Jun 2016 15:50:24 +0100, dennis@home
wrote:

On 30/06/2016 15:37, James Wilkinson wrote:
On Thu, 30 Jun 2016 15:00:50 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

On 30/06/16 14:57, James Wilkinson wrote:
If I didn't want Ebola I'd pay for the immunisation.

There is no immunisation. its the early stages of vaccines that may
possibly work on some strains.

http://www.cdc.gov/vhf/ebola/strive/qa.html

****, but you are stupid.

If there is no immunisation, this argument is pointless. You might
aswell say the NHS helps stop the spread of aids.


You need to look up the difference between treatment and vaccination.

I know what they mean. What is your point? Do you think people with
Ebola and no NHS would just wander around infecting everyone?

Well if you look at the reality in Africa well yes, that is exactly how
it spreads.

And AIDS too.

Works in USA without NHS.

Because there any hospital that receives any federal funding
at all has to treat any life threatening medical problem even
if the individual can't afford to pay for that treatment.

On Thu, 30 Jun 2016 21:29:41 +0100, Rod Speed wrote:



"James Wilkinson" wrote in message
news
On Thu, 30 Jun 2016 18:01:51 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

On 30/06/16 16:07, James Wilkinson wrote:
On Thu, 30 Jun 2016 15:50:24 +0100, dennis@home
wrote:

On 30/06/2016 15:37, James Wilkinson wrote:
On Thu, 30 Jun 2016 15:00:50 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

On 30/06/16 14:57, James Wilkinson wrote:
If I didn't want Ebola I'd pay for the immunisation.

There is no immunisation. its the early stages of vaccines that may
possibly work on some strains.

http://www.cdc.gov/vhf/ebola/strive/qa.html

****, but you are stupid.

If there is no immunisation, this argument is pointless. You might
aswell say the NHS helps stop the spread of aids.


You need to look up the difference between treatment and vaccination.

I know what they mean. What is your point? Do you think people with
Ebola and no NHS would just wander around infecting everyone?

Well if you look at the reality in Africa well yes, that is exactly how
it spreads.

And AIDS too.

Works in USA without NHS.

Because there any hospital that receives any federal funding
at all has to treat any life threatening medical problem even
if the individual can't afford to pay for that treatment.

Life threatening. And then they charge them if possible. Not like our money pit that pays for everything.

--
Crazy Laws in towns of the state of Illinois:
The English language is not to be spoken.
You must contact the police before entering the city in an automobile.
You may be convicted of a Class 4 felony offense, punishable by up to three years in state prison, for the crime of "eavesdropping" on your own conversation. -720 ILCS 5/14-2.
Law forbids eating in a place that is on fire.
It is forbidden to fish while sitting on a giraffe's neck.
It is legal to protest naked in front of city hall as long as you are under seventeen years of age and have legal permits.
One may not pee in his neighbor's mouth.
Humming on public streets is prohibited on Sundays.
Wheelbarrows with For-Sale signs may not be chained to trees.
A man with a moustache may not kiss a woman.
It is illegal to go trick-or-treating on Halloween.
It is unlawful to change clothes in an automobile with the curtains drawn, except in case of fire.
It is illegal to expectorate from any second-story window.
It is against the law to use a slingshot unless your are a law enforcement officer.
A rooster must step back three hundred feet from any residence if he wishes to crow. Hens that wish to cackle must step two hundred feet back from any residence.
Bees are not allowed to fly over the village or through any of Kriland's streets.
Ice skating at the Riverside pond during the months of June and August is prohibited.
There is a ban on unnecessary repetitive driving on 23rd Avenue.
It is against the law to make faces at dogs.

"James Wilkinson" wrote in message
news
On Thu, 30 Jun 2016 21:19:26 +0100, Rod Speed
wrote:



"James Wilkinson" wrote in message
news
On Thu, 30 Jun 2016 16:30:05 +0100, whisky-dave
wrote:

On Thursday, 30 June 2016 14:57:11 UTC+1, James Wilkinson wrote:
On Thu, 30 Jun 2016 13:40:21 +0100, whisky-dave

wrote:



If I didn't want Ebola I'd pay for the immunisation.

Where would that come from ?

My wallet.

Nope, because there is no ebola vaccination available.

Stop picking at straws.

You never could bull**** your way out of a wet paper bag.

"James Wilkinson" wrote in message
news
On Thu, 30 Jun 2016 21:29:41 +0100, Rod Speed
wrote:



"James Wilkinson" wrote in message
news
On Thu, 30 Jun 2016 18:01:51 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

On 30/06/16 16:07, James Wilkinson wrote:
On Thu, 30 Jun 2016 15:50:24 +0100, dennis@home

wrote:

On 30/06/2016 15:37, James Wilkinson wrote:
On Thu, 30 Jun 2016 15:00:50 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

On 30/06/16 14:57, James Wilkinson wrote:
If I didn't want Ebola I'd pay for the immunisation.

There is no immunisation. its the early stages of vaccines that may
possibly work on some strains.

http://www.cdc.gov/vhf/ebola/strive/qa.html

****, but you are stupid.

If there is no immunisation, this argument is pointless. You might
aswell say the NHS helps stop the spread of aids.


You need to look up the difference between treatment and vaccination.

I know what they mean. What is your point? Do you think people with
Ebola and no NHS would just wander around infecting everyone?

Well if you look at the reality in Africa well yes, that is exactly how
it spreads.

And AIDS too.

Works in USA without NHS.

Because there any hospital that receives any federal funding
at all has to treat any life threatening medical problem even
if the individual can't afford to pay for that treatment.

Life threatening.

That is what ebola and AIDS are.

And then they charge them if possible.

And get to wear the cost if they can't pay.

On 29/06/2016 2:41 PM, T i m wrote:
On Wed, 29 Jun 2016 14:04:53 +0100, "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:

snip

If there's one thing soldered joints don't like it's getting frozen with
water in the pipes. They 'pop' And once they have moved a little, you've
lost that perfect seal and of course strength.

Or compression joints for that matter.

When I was rebuilding this place I had a standpipe in the kitchen with
a compression / bib tap.

I came round one day to carry on working and found the tap on the
floor and a rod of ice sticking out of the remaining pipework!

'Luckily' it was still frozen when I found it or the kitchen floor
(dug out at the time) would have been an ice rink. ;-)

Cheers, T i m


A similar thing; while moving a large fridge freezer in a training
centre, which is a large fabricated metal warehouse structure, I caught
the copper 90 degree bend(presoldered) of the hot water system. The
immersion and header was 15ft above.

It was the slightest of movements, not aggressive at all and, it
brought the bend off. After turning the valve off, I inspected the bend
and noticed there was no sign of solder on the pipe. I pulled on the
bend and it slid off the other section just as easy.

I was surprised as there was no leak over the 4 years of heavy use by
trainees and staff. This is an open area and polished floor. Any water
drips would have showed. As it was it was just this one bend but having
a 15ft header, was surprised it stayed secure.

On Thu, 30 Jun 2016 22:33:37 +0100, Rod Speed wrote:



"James Wilkinson" wrote in message
news
On Thu, 30 Jun 2016 21:29:41 +0100, Rod Speed
wrote:



"James Wilkinson" wrote in message
news On Thu, 30 Jun 2016 18:01:51 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

On 30/06/16 16:07, James Wilkinson wrote:
On Thu, 30 Jun 2016 15:50:24 +0100, dennis@home

wrote:

On 30/06/2016 15:37, James Wilkinson wrote:
On Thu, 30 Jun 2016 15:00:50 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

On 30/06/16 14:57, James Wilkinson wrote:
If I didn't want Ebola I'd pay for the immunisation.

There is no immunisation. its the early stages of vaccines that may
possibly work on some strains.

http://www.cdc.gov/vhf/ebola/strive/qa.html

****, but you are stupid.

If there is no immunisation, this argument is pointless. You might
aswell say the NHS helps stop the spread of aids.


You need to look up the difference between treatment and vaccination.

I know what they mean. What is your point? Do you think people with
Ebola and no NHS would just wander around infecting everyone?

Well if you look at the reality in Africa well yes, that is exactly how
it spreads.

And AIDS too.

Works in USA without NHS.

Because there any hospital that receives any federal funding
at all has to treat any life threatening medical problem even
if the individual can't afford to pay for that treatment.

Life threatening.

That is what ebola and AIDS are.

The point is the NHS spends most money on non life threatening things.

And then they charge them if possible.

And get to wear the cost if they can't pay.

But in the UK, people who can afford it don't have to pay. And people who can't afford unnecessary treatment get it anyway.

--
Time that you enjoy wasting, is not wasted time -- Marthe Troly-Curtin

On Thu, 30 Jun 2016 22:27:16 +0100, Rod Speed wrote:



"James Wilkinson" wrote in message
news
On Thu, 30 Jun 2016 21:19:26 +0100, Rod Speed
wrote:



"James Wilkinson" wrote in message
news On Thu, 30 Jun 2016 16:30:05 +0100, whisky-dave
wrote:

On Thursday, 30 June 2016 14:57:11 UTC+1, James Wilkinson wrote:
On Thu, 30 Jun 2016 13:40:21 +0100, whisky-dave

wrote:



If I didn't want Ebola I'd pay for the immunisation.

Where would that come from ?

My wallet.

Nope, because there is no ebola vaccination available.

Stop picking at straws.

You never could bull**** your way out of a wet paper bag.

I never took you for a pedant.

--
The graduate with a science degree asks, "Why does it work?"
The graduate with an engineering degree asks, "How does it work?"
The graduate with an accounting degree asks, "How much will it cost?"
The graduate with an arts degree asks, "Do you want fries with that?"

On Thu, 30 Jun 2016 21:18:38 +0100, Rod Speed wrote:



"James Wilkinson" wrote in message
news
On Thu, 30 Jun 2016 17:31:32 +0100, dennis@home
wrote:

On 30/06/2016 16:17, James Wilkinson wrote:


That's the way I'd like it, but it's illegal to do that in the UK. Some
bull**** about you might write off a Ferrari and be unable to pay.


That is incorrect, you can write off a ferrari and have to payif you
have RTA insurance. However you would be covered for injuring someone
else.

The minimum insurance you are allowed is "third party" which covers the
Ferrari.

Nope, that is the first or second party.

In the UK that doesn't exist. We have:
3rd party: fully reimburses injury and car and property damage to other people if it's my fault.
3rd party fire and theft: as above but covers fire and theft of my own car aswell.
Fully comprehensive: pays for everything including damage to my own car caused by myself.

--
The graduate with a science degree asks, "Why does it work?"
The graduate with an engineering degree asks, "How does it work?"
The graduate with an accounting degree asks, "How much will it cost?"
The graduate with an arts degree asks, "Do you want fries with that?"

On Thu, 30 Jun 2016 20:57:35 +0100, Rod Speed wrote:



"James Wilkinson" wrote in message
news
On Thu, 30 Jun 2016 04:22:16 +0100, Rod Speed
wrote:



"James Wilkinson" wrote in message
news On Thu, 30 Jun 2016 00:06:22 +0100, Rod Speed
wrote:

dennis@home wrote
James Wilkinson wrote
dennis@home wrote
James Wilkinson wrote

The NHS is basically a compulsory health insurance, and a
****ty one at that. Insurance should never be compulsory.

I take that aussies don't need car insurance either, eh rod.

I'm in Scotland, not Australia. Have you not seen me arguing with
Rod?

I've seen rod arguing with rod.

More of your lies.

And no, we shouldn't have to have car insurance. Just make
everyone pay for the damage to their own car in an accident.

So buy third party insurance then.

No thanks. I prefer to pay for what damage I do.

I'd like to do the same, but it's illegal in the UK.

Our third party insurance is compulsory, but only pays for personal
injury, not damage to the cars or property they run into.

That's the way I'd like it, but it's illegal to do that in the UK. Some
bull**** about you might write off a Ferrari and be unable to pay.

That last is a risk we are free to take.

Snobs over here get upset about being so rich they can afford a Ferrari and worrying a chav with a Lada might break it.

The problem with the personal injury is that now that is paid for by
the NHS or equivalent anyway, so why have insurance for that now ?

Agreed - it's inconsistent.

Tho certainly if say you are crippled for life, you can make a case
that there should be insurance to pay the cripple for ending up like that.

You could make that case but I don't agree with it.

--
Did you hear about the new instant lottery game in India?
You scratch the ticket and if the dot matches the one on your forehead, you win a convenience store in the US.

On Thu, 30 Jun 2016 20:54:10 +0100, Rod Speed wrote:



"James Wilkinson" wrote in message
news
On Thu, 30 Jun 2016 16:13:45 +0100, dennis@home
wrote:

On 30/06/2016 16:07, James Wilkinson wrote:
On Thu, 30 Jun 2016 15:50:24 +0100, dennis@home
wrote:

On 30/06/2016 15:37, James Wilkinson wrote:
On Thu, 30 Jun 2016 15:00:50 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

On 30/06/16 14:57, James Wilkinson wrote:
If I didn't want Ebola I'd pay for the immunisation.

There is no immunisation. its the early stages of vaccines that may
possibly work on some strains.

http://www.cdc.gov/vhf/ebola/strive/qa.html

****, but you are stupid.

If there is no immunisation, this argument is pointless. You might
aswell say the NHS helps stop the spread of aids.


You need to look up the difference between treatment and vaccination.

I know what they mean. What is your point? Do you think people with
Ebola and no NHS would just wander around infecting everyone?

You do, they can't afford treatment so that's what they do.

Well you could have that paid for by the government, but why should they
pay to fix their broken leg?

Trouble with that approach is how do you decide what the govt pays for ?

Things that affect other people. Eg removing a contagious deadly disease from a pov benefits others. But don't bother fixing their broken leg.

Easy enough to decide that the NHS isnt going to pay for cosmetic stuff,
but even that can get tricky. What about kids with ears that look like
open car doors ? Should that be available on the NHS or not ?

Not. Probably genetic and the parents' fault. Anyway huge ears attract girls.

--
Ever stop to think, and forget to start again?

On Thu, 30 Jun 2016 20:50:31 +0100, Rod Speed wrote:



"James Wilkinson" wrote in message
news
On Thu, 30 Jun 2016 04:40:23 +0100, Rod Speed
wrote:



"James Wilkinson" wrote in message
news On Wed, 29 Jun 2016 03:01:44 +0100, Rod Speed
wrote:



"dennis@home" wrote in message
web.com...
On 28/06/2016 22:23, James Wilkinson wrote:


The NHS is basically a compulsory health insurance, and a ****ty one
at
that. Insurance should never be compulsory.


I take that aussies don't need car insurance either, eh rod.

I choose not to insure my 10 year old car because it would
be completely trivial to replace it if it did need to be replaced.
Just wave the phone at the point of sale terminal even if I
did replace it with a brand new one.

I only insured it for a couple of years when it was new
because the insurance was so cheap, $100 a year, and
we have lots of illegal immigrants here and it would
have been a bit irritating to have it wiped out by one
of them and to have them **** off back where they
came from. The insurance company kept jacking up
the premium on every renewal, even tho I never made
any claim at all, so I gave them the finger and didn't
bother to renew.

So in Aus you can drive around with no insurance?

No, what we can third party is compulsory, that covers personal injury,
but not the cars involved or what they run into either with property.

So with your "third party", let's say we both have that type of insurance,
and you crashed into me and it's all your fault. Your insurance would pay
for my injuries, but I would have to pay for fixing my car?

You are free to make the other driver pay for fixing your car.

And how do I make him do this?

And your injuries would be paid for even if neither of you
had the compulsory third party insurance too, because
there is provision for that situation in the legislation.

And they would be covered by our equivalent of your NHS anyway.

What if you right off another car? Who pays for that other car?

The person who is at fault/caused the accident. If they both
did, they split the cost. If say one of them contributed 10%,
they pay 10% of the cost if the cars arent insured.

So it comes out of your own pocket?

Only if you don't have what we call comprehensive insurance.

So if I have comprehensive, and you have third party, and you damage my car 100% your fault, the money comes out of my insurance company's pocket?

That's far too sensible. Over here we have to have insurance to cover the
damage to the other car.

To complicate things even more, we also have a third type of
car insurance, called third party property, which doesn't cover
your own car at all, but does pay for what damage you cause
to other people's cars and for damage to other people's
property, like when for example you come off the road at
speed and demolish or damage their house etc.

That's what we call "third party" and is the legal minimum. Although I've gotten away without it on a few occasions. Crashed into someone once, I just gave him some cash.

If the car that is written off has the voluntary what we call
comprehensive insurance, it pays for that car regardless of
whose fault it is and can in theory recover the cost from the
driver of the other car if that person caused the accident.
In practice they don't normally do any more than demand
that that driver pay for it and do nothing if they get an
obscene gesture from that driver.

--
I once got the stuffing beat out of me fighting for a girl's honour.
She wanted to keep it.

On Thu, 30 Jun 2016 20:44:08 +0100, Rod Speed wrote:

James Wilkinson wrote
Rod Speed wrote
James Wilkinson wrote
Dave Liquorice wrote
James Wilkinson wrote

In my entire life, the only thing the NHS fixed for me was a couple of
broken bones.

So you didn't get the arm full of childhood vaccinations?

A hell of a lot of parents think those do more harm than good.

More fool them.

Why?

Because its not a great idea to have one of your kids die of
whooping cough when its so cheap to completely avoid that
possibility, even if you have to pay for the vaccination yourself.

But it's not clear whether the vaccine or the disease causes more damage in some cases.

I've never bothered with the recommended vaccines when going abroad.

And those who want their kids to have them should pay for them. I don't
have kids and don't want to pay for other kids' vaccinations.

But I bet the state did pay for yours.

I wasn't working at the time.

Bet your parents didn't pay for yours.

They should have, they chose to have kids.

You've not been abroad and had vaccinations for the common nasties out
there? (Though some are not available on the NHS, Rabies springs to
mind).

I've been abroad and am not pathetically paranoid. So I didn't get any
vaccinations.

You have never had any NHS prescriptions from a GP, Out patient, In
patient?

Not any that did me any good, no.

You are not registered with a GP? Presumably if you want routine
medical treatment/advice you see a GP as a private patient?

Routine?!? You see a GP routinely?!?

If you need scrapping up off the road which private A&E department
via which private ambulance service are you going to use?

I'll pay for that IF I need it. I don't want to pay for others'
misfortune.

All that for less than £2.80/week

Ah the classic of reducing the timescale to make it look smaller. Sky
TV
do that and tell you what you pay per day.

Class 2 Self Employed (+ Class 4 on
any profits) or £14.10/week Class 3 Voluntary(*). Only a proportion
of those amounts goes to the NHS, Class 2 provides Basic and New
State Pension, Contribution based Employment and Support Allowance,
Maternity Allowance and Bereavement benefits. Class 3 doesn't have
the ESA or Maternity Allwances.

(*) Except that Class 2 at least has been abolished and included in
the Class 4 contributions. The actual cost of the NHS to the
individual is not that much.

Who wrote that nonsense? Self Employed do not pay anything like £14.10 a WEEK.

--
She was as easy as the Daily Star crossword.

"James Wilkinson" wrote in message
news
On Thu, 30 Jun 2016 22:33:37 +0100, Rod Speed
wrote:



"James Wilkinson" wrote in message
news
On Thu, 30 Jun 2016 21:29:41 +0100, Rod Speed
wrote:



"James Wilkinson" wrote in message
news On Thu, 30 Jun 2016 18:01:51 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

On 30/06/16 16:07, James Wilkinson wrote:
On Thu, 30 Jun 2016 15:50:24 +0100, dennis@home

wrote:

On 30/06/2016 15:37, James Wilkinson wrote:
On Thu, 30 Jun 2016 15:00:50 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

On 30/06/16 14:57, James Wilkinson wrote:
If I didn't want Ebola I'd pay for the immunisation.

There is no immunisation. its the early stages of vaccines that
may
possibly work on some strains.

http://www.cdc.gov/vhf/ebola/strive/qa.html

****, but you are stupid.

If there is no immunisation, this argument is pointless. You
might
aswell say the NHS helps stop the spread of aids.


You need to look up the difference between treatment and
vaccination.

I know what they mean. What is your point? Do you think people
with
Ebola and no NHS would just wander around infecting everyone?

Well if you look at the reality in Africa well yes, that is exactly
how
it spreads.

And AIDS too.

Works in USA without NHS.

Because there any hospital that receives any federal funding
at all has to treat any life threatening medical problem even
if the individual can't afford to pay for that treatment.

Life threatening.

That is what ebola and AIDS are.

The point is the NHS spends most money on non life threatening things.

And then they charge them if possible.

And get to wear the cost if they can't pay.

But in the UK, people who can afford it don't have to pay.

Most of them do have to pay for NI.

And people who can't afford unnecessary treatment get it anyway.

"James Wilkinson" wrote in message
news
On Thu, 30 Jun 2016 21:18:38 +0100, Rod Speed
wrote:



"James Wilkinson" wrote in message
news
On Thu, 30 Jun 2016 17:31:32 +0100, dennis@home
wrote:

On 30/06/2016 16:17, James Wilkinson wrote:


That's the way I'd like it, but it's illegal to do that in the UK.
Some
bull**** about you might write off a Ferrari and be unable to pay.


That is incorrect, you can write off a ferrari and have to payif you
have RTA insurance. However you would be covered for injuring someone
else.

The minimum insurance you are allowed is "third party" which covers the
Ferrari.

Nope, that is the first or second party.

In the UK that doesn't exist. We have:
3rd party: fully reimburses injury and car and property damage to other
people if it's my fault.
3rd party fire and theft: as above but covers fire and theft of my own car
aswell.
Fully comprehensive: pays for everything including damage to my own car
caused by myself.

We have the same thing except the first one doesn't cover car or property
damage.

"James Wilkinson" wrote in message
news
On Thu, 30 Jun 2016 20:57:35 +0100, Rod Speed
wrote:



"James Wilkinson" wrote in message
news
On Thu, 30 Jun 2016 04:22:16 +0100, Rod Speed
wrote:



"James Wilkinson" wrote in message
news On Thu, 30 Jun 2016 00:06:22 +0100, Rod Speed

wrote:

dennis@home wrote
James Wilkinson wrote
dennis@home wrote
James Wilkinson wrote

The NHS is basically a compulsory health insurance, and a
****ty one at that. Insurance should never be compulsory.

I take that aussies don't need car insurance either, eh rod.

I'm in Scotland, not Australia. Have you not seen me arguing with
Rod?

I've seen rod arguing with rod.

More of your lies.

And no, we shouldn't have to have car insurance. Just make
everyone pay for the damage to their own car in an accident.

So buy third party insurance then.

No thanks. I prefer to pay for what damage I do.

I'd like to do the same, but it's illegal in the UK.

Our third party insurance is compulsory, but only pays for personal
injury, not damage to the cars or property they run into.

That's the way I'd like it, but it's illegal to do that in the UK. Some
bull**** about you might write off a Ferrari and be unable to pay.

That last is a risk we are free to take.

Snobs over here get upset about being so rich they can afford a Ferrari
and worrying a chav with a Lada might break it.

They do here too, and realise that their comprehensive insurance
will pay for the replacement of the Ferrari if that happens.

The problem with the personal injury is that now that is paid for by
the NHS or equivalent anyway, so why have insurance for that now ?

Agreed - it's inconsistent.

Tho certainly if say you are crippled for life, you can make a case
that there should be insurance to pay the cripple for ending up like
that.

You could make that case but I don't agree with it.

"James Wilkinson" wrote in message
news
On Thu, 30 Jun 2016 20:54:10 +0100, Rod Speed
wrote:



"James Wilkinson" wrote in message
news
On Thu, 30 Jun 2016 16:13:45 +0100, dennis@home
wrote:

On 30/06/2016 16:07, James Wilkinson wrote:
On Thu, 30 Jun 2016 15:50:24 +0100, dennis@home

wrote:

On 30/06/2016 15:37, James Wilkinson wrote:
On Thu, 30 Jun 2016 15:00:50 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

On 30/06/16 14:57, James Wilkinson wrote:
If I didn't want Ebola I'd pay for the immunisation.

There is no immunisation. its the early stages of vaccines that may
possibly work on some strains.

http://www.cdc.gov/vhf/ebola/strive/qa.html

****, but you are stupid.

If there is no immunisation, this argument is pointless. You might
aswell say the NHS helps stop the spread of aids.


You need to look up the difference between treatment and vaccination.

I know what they mean. What is your point? Do you think people with
Ebola and no NHS would just wander around infecting everyone?

You do, they can't afford treatment so that's what they do.

Well you could have that paid for by the government, but why should they
pay to fix their broken leg?

Trouble with that approach is how do you decide what the govt pays for ?

Things that affect other people. Eg removing a contagious deadly disease
from a pov benefits others. But don't bother fixing their broken leg.

Easy enough to decide that the NHS isnt going to pay for cosmetic stuff,
but even that can get tricky. What about kids with ears that look like
open car doors ? Should that be available on the NHS or not ?

Not. Probably genetic and the parents' fault. Anyway huge ears attract
girls.

Didn't work for Chaz, all he managed to attract was an old used scrubber.

"James Wilkinson" wrote in message
news
On Thu, 30 Jun 2016 20:50:31 +0100, Rod Speed
wrote:



"James Wilkinson" wrote in message
news
On Thu, 30 Jun 2016 04:40:23 +0100, Rod Speed
wrote:



"James Wilkinson" wrote in message
news On Wed, 29 Jun 2016 03:01:44 +0100, Rod Speed

wrote:



"dennis@home" wrote in message
web.com...
On 28/06/2016 22:23, James Wilkinson wrote:


The NHS is basically a compulsory health insurance, and a ****ty
one
at
that. Insurance should never be compulsory.


I take that aussies don't need car insurance either, eh rod.

I choose not to insure my 10 year old car because it would
be completely trivial to replace it if it did need to be replaced.
Just wave the phone at the point of sale terminal even if I
did replace it with a brand new one.

I only insured it for a couple of years when it was new
because the insurance was so cheap, $100 a year, and
we have lots of illegal immigrants here and it would
have been a bit irritating to have it wiped out by one
of them and to have them **** off back where they
came from. The insurance company kept jacking up
the premium on every renewal, even tho I never made
any claim at all, so I gave them the finger and didn't
bother to renew.

So in Aus you can drive around with no insurance?

No, what we can third party is compulsory, that covers personal injury,
but not the cars involved or what they run into either with property.

So with your "third party", let's say we both have that type of
insurance,
and you crashed into me and it's all your fault. Your insurance would
pay
for my injuries, but I would have to pay for fixing my car?

You are free to make the other driver pay for fixing your car.

And how do I make him do this?

Various ways. When some stupid kid did that, I showed
up at his place and his dad made him pay to fix it.

You can use the legal system to make them pay too.

And your injuries would be paid for even if neither of you
had the compulsory third party insurance too, because
there is provision for that situation in the legislation.

And they would be covered by our equivalent of your NHS anyway.

What if you right off another car? Who pays for that other car?

The person who is at fault/caused the accident. If they both
did, they split the cost. If say one of them contributed 10%,
they pay 10% of the cost if the cars arent insured.

So it comes out of your own pocket?

Only if you don't have what we call comprehensive insurance.

So if I have comprehensive, and you have third party, and you damage my
car 100% your fault, the money comes out of my insurance company's pocket?

Yes, but with the no claim bonus coming out of your pocket with some
insurance companys, and the excess out ot yours with all of them.

That's far too sensible. Over here we have to have insurance to cover
the
damage to the other car.

To complicate things even more, we also have a third type of
car insurance, called third party property, which doesn't cover
your own car at all, but does pay for what damage you cause
to other people's cars and for damage to other people's
property, like when for example you come off the road at
speed and demolish or damage their house etc.

That's what we call "third party" and is the legal minimum. Although I've
gotten away without it on a few occasions. Crashed into someone once, I
just gave him some cash.

Yeah, that's what that kid did when he ran into mine.

Wasn't a lot of damage.

When a taxi driver ran up the arse of my Beetle with me
stopped at a pedestrian crossing, his comprehensive
insurance paid for the repairs. Or more strictly the
owner of the taxi's comprehensive insurance did.

If the car that is written off has the voluntary what we call
comprehensive insurance, it pays for that car regardless of
whose fault it is and can in theory recover the cost from the
driver of the other car if that person caused the accident.
In practice they don't normally do any more than demand
that that driver pay for it and do nothing if they get an
obscene gesture from that driver.

James Wilkinson wrote
Rod Speed wrote
James Wilkinson wrote
Rod Speed wrote
James Wilkinson wrote
Dave Liquorice wrote
James Wilkinson wrote

In my entire life, the only thing the NHS fixed for me was a couple
of broken bones.

So you didn't get the arm full of childhood vaccinations?

A hell of a lot of parents think those do more harm than good.

More fool them.

Why?

Because its not a great idea to have one of your kids die of
whooping cough when its so cheap to completely avoid that
possibility, even if you have to pay for the vaccination yourself.

But it's not clear whether the vaccine or the disease causes more damage
in some cases.

It is completely clear that the vaccination doesn't.

I've never bothered with the recommended vaccines when going abroad.

The risk is quite low with most places you are likely to have visited.

And those who want their kids to have them should pay for them. I
don't have kids and don't want to pay for other kids' vaccinations.

But I bet the state did pay for yours.

I wasn't working at the time.

Bet your parents didn't pay for yours.

They should have, they chose to have kids.

You've not been abroad and had vaccinations for the common nasties
out
there? (Though some are not available on the NHS, Rabies springs to
mind).

I've been abroad and am not pathetically paranoid. So I didn't get
any
vaccinations.

You have never had any NHS prescriptions from a GP, Out patient, In
patient?

Not any that did me any good, no.

You are not registered with a GP? Presumably if you want routine
medical treatment/advice you see a GP as a private patient?

Routine?!? You see a GP routinely?!?

If you need scrapping up off the road which private A&E department
via which private ambulance service are you going to use?

I'll pay for that IF I need it. I don't want to pay for others'
misfortune.

All that for less than £2.80/week

Ah the classic of reducing the timescale to make it look smaller. Sky
TV
do that and tell you what you pay per day.

Class 2 Self Employed (+ Class 4 on
any profits) or £14.10/week Class 3 Voluntary(*). Only a proportion
of those amounts goes to the NHS, Class 2 provides Basic and New
State Pension, Contribution based Employment and Support Allowance,
Maternity Allowance and Bereavement benefits. Class 3 doesn't have
the ESA or Maternity Allwances.

(*) Except that Class 2 at least has been abolished and included in
the Class 4 contributions. The actual cost of the NHS to the
individual is not that much.

Who wrote that nonsense?

Dave Liquorice.

Self Employed do not pay anything like £14.10 a WEEK.

On Thu, 30 Jun 2016 23:53:54 +0100, RayL12
wrote:

snip

A similar thing; while moving a large fridge freezer in a training
centre, which is a large fabricated metal warehouse structure, I caught
the copper 90 degree bend(presoldered) of the hot water system. The
immersion and header was 15ft above.

Ok.

It was the slightest of movements, not aggressive at all and, it
brought the bend off. After turning the valve off, I inspected the bend
and noticed there was no sign of solder on the pipe. I pulled on the
bend and it slid off the other section just as easy.

Oooerr.

I was surprised as there was no leak over the 4 years of heavy use by
trainees and staff. This is an open area and polished floor. Any water
drips would have showed. As it was it was just this one bend but having
a 15ft header, was surprised it stayed secure.

I wonder if it had been fluxed and left for a bit (preventing a leak)
and being an elbow, under some slight load, helping it stay in place?

It's amazing they you can get away with such things and then find a
(compression) joint that was tightened but just not enough, or a joint
that was actually soldered, fails.

Cheers, T i m

On 29/06/2016 21:15, Rod Speed wrote:
Dave Plowman (News) wrote
Rod Speed wrote

I sincerely hope so, but I very much doubt it. Economists are rarely so
much in agreement as they are about the future of the UK after Brexit.

They were on whether Britain should be in the eurozone
or not and were completely wrong about that.

NOT ONE of the predicted the worst
recession since the Great Depression either.

With a track record like that, only a fool would take any notice of
them at all

No point in ever using an expert then Wodney.
Because they are not always right.

Even sillier than you usually manage. In this situation the only
thing that makes any sense at all is to consider their claims
and when you do that, they don’t hold water. Even if the pound
does sag say 10% permanently with Britain out of the EU, all that
does is allow British exports that end up in the EU to be buyable
by EU consumers FOR THE SAME PRICE AS THEY WERE BEFORE
BRITAIN LEFT THE EU, if say there is an 8% duty on what comes
into the EU from outside the EU. So even you should have noticed
that that wouldn’t see the British economy with any problem at all.


That is assuming current trade agreements hold. Being part of the EU
confers a lot of practical - and intangible - pros and cons. Buggered if
I can make sense of them all, but the consensus seemed to be that the UK
would lose out post-exit. Osborne is more optimistic - make of that what
you will.

Yes, imports would cost more, but it is unlikely that most of the
consumer goods that Britain currently imports would damage
the economy much if they cost 10% more, particularly as they
would no longer have the say 8% duty payable on stuff that
comes into the EU from outside the EU.


Yes, remains to be seen. It will have symbolic and policy knock-ons,
though, as the UK growth figures will be hit. So on past form of Tory
governments, more cuts to pensions and local services.

I think the NHS will be further privatised - they have the political
legitimacy to press for this now, and Theresa May is just the person to
see it through.

Yes, EU cars would cost more, but again, that isnt going
to cripple the British economy, at most it might see those
who choose to keep buying cars from the EU keep them
for a bit longer and that will only affect the EU car
manufacturers.

So those 'experts' have no basis for their claim that
leaving the EU would cripple the British economy.


It won't 'cripple' - I don't remember that mentioned in anything
approaching measured analysis.


--
Cheers, Rob

On 01/07/2016 12:30, RJH wrote:


That is assuming current trade agreements hold. Being part of the EU
confers a lot of practical - and intangible - pros and cons. Buggered if
I can make sense of them all, but the consensus seemed to be that the UK
would lose out post-exit. Osborne is more optimistic - make of that what
you will.

That would be the same Osborne that has said the UK will abandon trying
to stop the deficit by 2020 now we are leaving?

So more expensive borrowing and more of it, I think that means more tax
unless someone (other than rod) knows why not?