 |
|
| Science Forum Index » Economy Forum » Will VA & NJ Opt Out of Public Option?... |
|
Page 4 of 4 Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4 |
|
| Author |
Message |
| Rod Speed... |
 Posted: Fri Nov 06, 2009 11:55 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Shrikeback wrote
[quote]Rod Speed <rod.speed.... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote
Shrikeback wrote:
Just what do you think the cuts in Medicare Advantage are
all about? Giving Granny the best that the SEIU has to offer?
And clearly, since there is no provision to increase the
supply of medical labor in this bill, it will neccessarily
treat medical access as a zero sum game.
Mindlessly silly. Those getting medical services they currently
have to do without will see more delivering those services.
Really?
[/quote]
Yes, really.
[quote]How is that going to happen?
[/quote]
From that fact that ghose who currently dont have insurance wont have a choice on that.
And from the fact that those who are currently refused insurance will be
able to require someone to insure them, even if thats the govt option etc.
[quote]Are Doctors and Surgeons going to suddenly
materialize out of the Large Hadron Collider simply
because we passed some goofy boondoggle?
[/quote]
They dont need to. The most they need to do is put in more
hours providing medical services that can now be paid for etc.
[quote]The only way person X can get more is for person
Y to get less. From granny to somebody.
Mindlessly superficial. Increased demand for medical
services will see more delivering those medical services.
No.
[/quote]
Yep.
[quote]There is no plan to increase the number of Doctors
produced by the med schools in this country whatsoever.
[/quote]
That will happen anyway if the demand for medical services goes up, fool.
[quote]The number of graduates produced in the US,
you must understand, is very tightly controlled.
[/quote]
The govt wont allow them to continue to do that
if they cant provide the medical services required.
[quote]This is why medical services are so much more expensive here, relative to per capita income.
[/quote]
Another pig ignorant lie. That happens right thruout most of the first and second world too. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| John Galt... |
| Posted: Sat Nov 07, 2009 7:30 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Clave wrote:
[quote]"John Galt" <kady101 at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote in message
news:lsQIm.148578$Gs.30228 at (no spam) en-nntp-01.dc1.easynews.com...
Clave wrote:
"John Galt" <kady101 at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote in message
news:IUPIm.375187$uD.18564 at (no spam) en-nntp-09.am2.easynews.com...
Clave wrote:
"John Galt" <kady101 at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote in message
news:ppOIm.357612$gF5.325550 at (no spam) en-nntp-01.am2.easynews.com...
Clave wrote:
...
You are aware that reforming Medicare is part of the larger health
insurance reform plan, right?
I am. The effect on medicare solvency is inappreciable. The changes
simply move money from one pocket to the other. The dates remain the
same, for all intents and purposes.
Because you say so?
Because the CBO says so.
The CBO says Medicare reform can't change their projected insolvency
dates?
No. The CBO has been silent on any sort of change in the insolvency date
in their analyses. It is therefore logical to assume that there is no
change in the insolvency dates.
Actually, that's about the *furthest* thing from logical there is.
That aside, a few years in either direction isn't the point; if the bill
did postpone insolvency for a few years, that's simply kicking the can
down the road on the matter.
How remarkably prescient of them. I sure didn't read that in anything
you cited, though.
Nor did you read anything to the contrary.
Your command of logic continues to amaze.
But do go ahead an believe whatever fortune-telling you find comforting.
I prefer to stick to the facts on the ground that exist. YMMV, and does,
evidently.
One fact on the ground being that you're full of shit.
[/quote]
And the other being that you are unable to go more than one
back-and-forth with a rational person without resorting to personal
attacks.
You lose.
JG
[quote]
Doubtless your perception varies.
Jim
[/quote] |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| John Galt... |
| Posted: Sat Nov 07, 2009 7:33 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Les Cargill wrote:
[quote]John Galt wrote:
Clave wrote:
"John Galt" <kady101 at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote in message
news:IUPIm.375187$uD.18564 at (no spam) en-nntp-09.am2.easynews.com...
Clave wrote:
"John Galt" <kady101 at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote in message
news:ppOIm.357612$gF5.325550 at (no spam) en-nntp-01.am2.easynews.com...
Clave wrote:
...
You are aware that reforming Medicare is part of the larger
health insurance reform plan, right?
I am. The effect on medicare solvency is inappreciable. The
changes simply move money from one pocket to the other. The dates
remain the same, for all intents and purposes.
Because you say so?
Because the CBO says so.
The CBO says Medicare reform can't change their projected insolvency
dates?
No. The CBO has been silent on any sort of change in the insolvency
date in their analyses. It is therefore logical to assume that there
is no change in the insolvency dates.
Peter Orzag says a thing of two on Charlie Rose from NOV-03...the core
of it is that they expect reductions in health care costs for
government by whatever results from the health care reform.
[/quote]
They they "expect" that they can (a) increase demand in the face of (b)
static suppply and have as the result (c) that prices will fall.
I suppose there are indeed those who jump out of 10th story windows and
expect to go up rather than down. No reason for others to support that
behavior, though, as far as I can see.
JG
[quote]
That aside, a few years in either direction isn't the point; if the
bill did postpone insolvency for a few years, that's simply kicking
the can down the road on the matter.
How remarkably prescient of them. I sure didn't read that in
anything you cited, though.
Nor did you read anything to the contrary.
But do go ahead an believe whatever fortune-telling you find comforting.
I prefer to stick to the facts on the ground that exist. YMMV, and
does, evidently.
JG
--
Les Cargill[/quote] |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Shrikeback... |
| Posted: Sat Nov 07, 2009 2:55 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Nov 6, 8:55 pm, "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
[quote]Shrikeback wrote
Rod Speed <rod.speed.... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote
Shrikeback wrote:
Just what do you think the cuts in Medicare Advantage are
all about? Giving Granny the best that the SEIU has to offer?
And clearly, since there is no provision to increase the
supply of medical labor in this bill, it will neccessarily
treat medical access as a zero sum game.
Mindlessly silly. Those getting medical services they currently
have to do without will see more delivering those services.
Really?
Yes, really.
How is that going to happen?
From that fact that ghose who currently dont have insurance wont have a choice on that.
[/quote]
That doesn't even make the faintest Rosie O'D. lick of sense.
[quote]And from the fact that those who are currently refused insurance will be
able to require someone to insure them, even if thats the govt option etc..
[/quote]
The problem is not a lack of demand, goofball. There's is
plenty of demand to go around. And, in any case, when
an uninsured individual needs the emergency room, he has
to be treated anyway. What you don't seem to understand
is that the price of a good or service depends on two thing:
supply and demand. Medical care in America, we are told
over and over again, is exceedingly expensive, meaning the
ratio of demand to supply is quite high already.
[quote]Are Doctors and Surgeons going to suddenly
materialize out of the Large Hadron Collider simply
because we passed some goofy boondoggle?
They dont need to. The most they need to do is put in more
hours providing medical services that can now be paid for etc.
[/quote]
LOL. This is why nobody takes you seriously, Rod. You
say the stupidest things. What is going to motivate Doctors
to put in more hours? If a Doctor these days takes Wednesdays
off for golf, it isn't because he has a shortage of patients, it's
because he can afford to.
[quote]The only way person X can get more is for person
Y to get less. From granny to somebody.
Mindlessly superficial. Increased demand for medical
services will see more delivering those medical services.
No.
Yep.
There is no plan to increase the number of Doctors
produced by the med schools in this country whatsoever.
That will happen anyway if the demand for medical services goes up, fool.
[/quote]
You have no idea what you are talking about. The number
of new MDs produced in America is rigidly controlled. The
AMA gets to put in its two cents on that quota, in fact. It
would require some, ahem, reform of rules surrounding the
supply of MDs to change that, not the reform of the rules
surrounding demand.
And we could do that reform withou ObamalosiCare anyway.
But that possibility is not even on the table. The idea in this
plan is to put the brakes on demand, i.e. rationing.
[quote]The number of graduates produced in the US,
you must understand, is very tightly controlled.
The govt wont allow them to continue to do that
if they cant provide the medical services required.
[/quote]
People are refused services no matter what. It's a process
known as triage. And the focus of ObamalosiCare is triaging
granny out. That's why 500 billion dollars in cuts to granny's
coverage are in the plan.
[quote]This is why medical services are so much more expensive here, relative to per capita income.
Another pig ignorant lie. That happens right thruout most of the first and second world too.
[/quote]
It is ironic that you throw around the word, "ignorant," when
you have no idea what's going on. Doctors in the US make
twice what Canadian doctors make. And India actually may have
the model for the future, in terms of keeping down costs. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Michael Coburn... |
| Posted: Sat Nov 07, 2009 3:36 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Sat, 07 Nov 2009 06:33:38 -0600, John Galt wrote:
[quote]Les Cargill wrote:
John Galt wrote:
Clave wrote:
"John Galt" <kady101 at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote in message
news:IUPIm.375187$uD.18564 at (no spam) en-nntp-09.am2.easynews.com...
Clave wrote:
"John Galt" <kady101 at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote in message
news:ppOIm.357612$gF5.325550 at (no spam) en-nntp-01.am2.easynews.com...
Clave wrote:
...
You are aware that reforming Medicare is part of the larger
health insurance reform plan, right?
I am. The effect on medicare solvency is inappreciable. The
changes simply move money from one pocket to the other. The dates
remain the same, for all intents and purposes.
Because you say so?
Because the CBO says so.
The CBO says Medicare reform can't change their projected insolvency
dates?
No. The CBO has been silent on any sort of change in the insolvency
date in their analyses. It is therefore logical to assume that there
is no change in the insolvency dates.
Peter Orzag says a thing of two on Charlie Rose from NOV-03...the core
of it is that they expect reductions in health care costs for
government by whatever results from the health care reform.
They they "expect" that they can (a) increase demand in the face of (b)
static suppply and have as the result (c) that prices will fall.
[/quote]
What the hell do you think you know about what _THEY_ intend to do GALT?
If the lying pig Republicans are not lying pigs then you must concede
that the poor already get care and thus insuring them WILL NOT INCREASE
DEMAND. If, however, you are smart enough to recognize Republican lying
pig shit and understand that the poor _ARE_ poorly served (no pun
intended) then there will be a marginal increase in demand. Your
problem, Galt, is the same as all conservative imbeciles in that you fail
to understand the dynamic nature of economics. There is nothing that
prevents the instant increase in physicians using the H1B system and
nothing that prevents shipping people to India or Mexico for liver
transplants until the American infrastructure can be repaired. That
infrastructure has been greatly harmed by greed.
[quote]I suppose there are indeed those who jump out of 10th story windows and
expect to go up rather than down. No reason for others to support that
behavior, though, as far as I can see.
[/quote]
There are many who are so nailed to the past that they have no visions at
all.
[quote]
That aside, a few years in either direction isn't the point; if the
bill did postpone insolvency for a few years, that's simply kicking
the can down the road on the matter.
How remarkably prescient of them. I sure didn't read that in
anything you cited, though.
Nor did you read anything to the contrary.
But do go ahead an believe whatever fortune-telling you find
comforting.
I prefer to stick to the facts on the ground that exist. YMMV, and
does, evidently.
JG
--
Les Cargill
[/quote]
--
"Those are my opinions and you can't have em" -- Bart Simpson |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Michael Coburn... |
| Posted: Sat Nov 07, 2009 3:37 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Sat, 07 Nov 2009 06:30:28 -0600, John Galt wrote:
[quote]Clave wrote:
"John Galt" <kady101 at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote in message
news:lsQIm.148578$Gs.30228 at (no spam) en-nntp-01.dc1.easynews.com...
Clave wrote:
"John Galt" <kady101 at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote in message
news:IUPIm.375187$uD.18564 at (no spam) en-nntp-09.am2.easynews.com...
Clave wrote:
"John Galt" <kady101 at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote in message
news:ppOIm.357612$gF5.325550 at (no spam) en-nntp-01.am2.easynews.com...
Clave wrote:
...
You are aware that reforming Medicare is part of the larger
health insurance reform plan, right?
I am. The effect on medicare solvency is inappreciable. The
changes simply move money from one pocket to the other. The dates
remain the same, for all intents and purposes.
Because you say so?
Because the CBO says so.
The CBO says Medicare reform can't change their projected insolvency
dates?
No. The CBO has been silent on any sort of change in the insolvency
date in their analyses. It is therefore logical to assume that there
is no change in the insolvency dates.
Actually, that's about the *furthest* thing from logical there is.
That aside, a few years in either direction isn't the point; if the
bill did postpone insolvency for a few years, that's simply kicking
the can down the road on the matter.
How remarkably prescient of them. I sure didn't read that in
anything you cited, though.
Nor did you read anything to the contrary.
Your command of logic continues to amaze.
But do go ahead an believe whatever fortune-telling you find
comforting.
I prefer to stick to the facts on the ground that exist. YMMV, and
does, evidently.
One fact on the ground being that you're full of shit.
And the other being that you are unable to go more than one
back-and-forth with a rational person without resorting to personal
attacks.
You lose.
[/quote]
You are not rational, Galt.
[quote]
Doubtless your perception varies.
Jim
[/quote]
--
"Those are my opinions and you can't have em" -- Bart Simpson |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Bret Cahill... |
| Posted: Sat Nov 07, 2009 6:19 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
[quote]don't spree with everyone else's money.
I don't see anyone holding a gun to anyone's head forcing anyone to to
remain in the collectively acquired collectively defended territory of
the United States and pay taxes.
You are free to choose to leave anytime.
Call 1-800-FLY-4-LESS and book the next one way flight to Mogadishu in
low tax paradise Somalia.
We don't need rightards.
We don't want rightards.
Well, good.
[/quote]
That explains why Obama is so popular. Everyone is happy with him.
Nice smooth transition for a rightard!
Keep up the good work!
Bret Cahill |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Bret Cahill... |
| Posted: Sat Nov 07, 2009 6:24 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
[quote] That's why 500 billion dollars in cuts to granny's
coverage are in the plan.
[/quote]
Just hike taxes on the rich by 500 billion.
We can use another high tax economic boom!
Bret Cahill |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Bret Cahill... |
| Posted: Sat Nov 07, 2009 6:29 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Rod, you don't perchance drink that stuff they call "bitters" in the
UK?
I tried a can of that and it's worse than any other alcoholic
beverage.
How was such a horrible drink ever invented in the first place?
Bret Cahill |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Clave... |
| Posted: Sat Nov 07, 2009 7:10 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"John Galt" <kady101 at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote in message
news:GLdJm.173963$Jp1.166159 at (no spam) en-nntp-06.dc1.easynews.com...
[quote]Clave wrote:
"John Galt" <kady101 at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote in message
news:lsQIm.148578$Gs.30228 at (no spam) en-nntp-01.dc1.easynews.com...
Clave wrote:
"John Galt" <kady101 at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote in message
news:IUPIm.375187$uD.18564 at (no spam) en-nntp-09.am2.easynews.com...
Clave wrote:
"John Galt" <kady101 at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote in message
news:ppOIm.357612$gF5.325550 at (no spam) en-nntp-01.am2.easynews.com...
Clave wrote:
...
You are aware that reforming Medicare is part of the larger health
insurance reform plan, right?
I am. The effect on medicare solvency is inappreciable. The changes
simply move money from one pocket to the other. The dates remain the
same, for all intents and purposes.
Because you say so?
Because the CBO says so.
The CBO says Medicare reform can't change their projected insolvency
dates?
No. The CBO has been silent on any sort of change in the insolvency date
in their analyses. It is therefore logical to assume that there is no
change in the insolvency dates.
Actually, that's about the *furthest* thing from logical there is.
That aside, a few years in either direction isn't the point; if the bill
did postpone insolvency for a few years, that's simply kicking the can
down the road on the matter.
How remarkably prescient of them. I sure didn't read that in anything
you cited, though.
Nor did you read anything to the contrary.
Your command of logic continues to amaze.
But do go ahead an believe whatever fortune-telling you find
comforting.
I prefer to stick to the facts on the ground that exist. YMMV, and does,
evidently.
One fact on the ground being that you're full of shit.
And the other being that you are unable to go more than one back-and-forth
with a rational person without resorting to personal attacks.
[/quote]
Had I been arguing with a rational person, you might have a point.
You don't.
Jim |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Bret Cahill... |
| Posted: Sat Nov 07, 2009 8:53 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
[quote]Rod, you don't perchance drink that stuff they call "bitters" in the UK?
If you mean bitter,http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bitter_(beer)
[/quote]
No one drinks that stuff outside the UK, do they?
[quote]yes, in fact I make it myself.
[/quote]
That was obvious from your postings.
Now answer one more question:
How many pints/post are you doing?
Bret Cahill |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Rod Speed... |
| Posted: Sat Nov 07, 2009 10:49 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Shrikeback wrote
[quote]Rod Speed <rod.speed.... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote
Shrikeback wrote
Rod Speed <rod.speed.... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote
Shrikeback wrote:
Just what do you think the cuts in Medicare Advantage are
all about? Giving Granny the best that the SEIU has to offer?
And clearly, since there is no provision to increase the
supply of medical labor in this bill, it will neccessarily
treat medical access as a zero sum game.
Mindlessly silly. Those getting medical services they currently
have to do without will see more delivering those services.
Really?
Yes, really.
How is that going to happen?
From that fact that those who currently dont have insurance wont have a choice on that.
That doesn't even make the faintest Rosie O'D. lick of sense.
[/quote]
You're lying, as always.
[quote]And from the fact that those who are currently refused insurance will be
able to require someone to insure them, even if thats the govt option etc.
The problem is not a lack of demand
[/quote]
No one ever said it was, fuckwit.
[quote]There's is plenty of demand to go around.
[/quote]
Having fun thrashing that straw man ?
[quote]And, in any case, when an uninsured individual needs
the emergency room, he has to be treated anyway.
[/quote]
And when he needs non urgent medical services for his diabetes,
cancer, heart disease, bad hip etc etc etc, he doesnt.
[quote]What you don't seem to understand is that the price of a
good or service depends on two thing: supply and demand.
[/quote]
And when demand increases, so will supply, fool.
[quote]Medical care in America, we are told over
and over again, is exceedingly expensive,
[/quote]
The real reason the US pisses twice the percentage of GDP
against the wall on health care is that someone has to pay
for all those paper shuffling apes in the health insurance
industry, and for all the advertising they do, etc etc etc.
[quote]meaning the ratio of demand to supply is quite high already.
[/quote]
Pig ignorant lie when hordes have no insurance to pay for it and
when they cant afford to pay for it out of their pockets either
with the more expensive medical services like hip replacements,
medication for their heart disease, for their cancer etc etc etc.
[quote]Are Doctors and Surgeons going to suddenly
materialize out of the Large Hadron Collider simply
because we passed some goofy boondoggle?
They dont need to. The most they need to do is put in more
hours providing medical services that can now be paid for etc.
LOL. This is why nobody takes you seriously,
Rod. You say the stupidest things.
[/quote]
Its you that everyone has noticed is a pathetic joke, gutless.
[quote]What is going to motivate Doctors to put in more hours?
[/quote]
The extra money they get for providing those services, fool.
[quote]If a Doctor these days takes Wednesdays off for golf, it isn't because
he has a shortage of patients, it's because he can afford to.
[/quote]
And there are plenty of doctors that need more paying customers too.
Only a fool would seriously claim that they all get all the work they ever need currently.
[quote]The only way person X can get more is for person
Y to get less. From granny to somebody.
Mindlessly superficial. Increased demand for medical
services will see more delivering those medical services.
No.
Yep.
There is no plan to increase the number of Doctors
produced by the med schools in this country whatsoever.
That will happen anyway if the demand for medical services goes up, fool.
You have no idea what you are talking about.
[/quote]
We'll see...
[quote]The number of new MDs produced in America is rigidly controlled.
[/quote]
Pig ignorant lie with hordes of them.
[quote]The AMA gets to put in its two cents on that quota, in fact.
[/quote]
And wont if they are actually stupid enough to keep the
numbers the same as the demand goes up substantially.
[quote]It would require some, ahem, reform of rules
surrounding the supply of MDs to change that,
[/quote]
Nope, even the AMA isnt actually stupid enough to
keep the numbers the same as the demand goes up.
[quote]not the reform of the rules surrounding demand.
And we could do that reform withou ObamalosiCare anyway.
[/quote]
Yes, but thats what you're stuck with currently.
[quote]But that possibility is not even on the table.
[/quote]
Yes, your political system is actually that comprehensively fucked.
[quote]The idea in this plan is to put the brakes on demand, i.e. rationing.
[/quote]
Another bare faced lie.
There is ALREADY rationing, those who cant get insurance have to do
without the medical services they need with non emergency medical problems.
Forcing all those to have insurance will see LESS rationing of medical services, fool.
[quote]The number of graduates produced in the US,
you must understand, is very tightly controlled.
The govt wont allow them to continue to do that
if they cant provide the medical services required.
People are refused services no matter what.
[/quote]
Another bare faced lie. They arent refused medical services
in any other modern first and second world country.
[quote]It's a process known as triage.
[/quote]
Triage is something completely different, deciding who needs
the medical services first with emergency medicine and avoiding
them dying of their medical problem when thats possible.
[quote]And the focus of ObamalosiCare is triaging granny out.
[/quote]
Another bare faced lie. Medicare does nothing of the sort, you silly little pathological liar.
The current proposal before Congress doesnt even deal with grannys, because
they are adequately covered by Medicare already, you silly little pathological liar.
[quote]That's why 500 billion dollars in cuts to granny's coverage are in the plan.
[/quote]
Another bare faced lie.
[quote]This is why medical services are so much more expensive here, relative to per capita income.
Another pig ignorant lie. That happens right thruout most of the first and second world too.
It is ironic that you throw around the word, "ignorant,"
when you have no idea what's going on.
[/quote]
You're lying, as always.
[quote]Doctors in the US make twice what Canadian doctors make.
[/quote]
Irrelevant to whether the AMA and its equivalent control the number of doctors
graduating right thruout much of the entire modern first and second world.
[quote]And India actually may have the model for the future, in terms of keeping down costs.
[/quote]
Not a chance, you watch. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Rod Speed... |
| Posted: Sun Nov 08, 2009 12:20 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Bret Cahill wrote:
[quote]Rod, you don't perchance drink that stuff they call "bitters" in the UK?
[/quote]
If you mean bitter,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bitter_(beer)
yes, in fact I make it myself.
Bitters is something else entirely, something you
add in very small amounts to some cocktails etc.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bitters
[quote]I tried a can of that
[/quote]
Must have been bitter, bitters doesnt come in cans.
[quote]and it's worse than any other alcoholic beverage.
[/quote]
Thats the reaction most kids have to it.
I used to love it even when a little kid.
But then I used to love blue vein cheese etc as a little kid too.
Hated broccoli tho, got into a stoush with my mum about that
and she lost, and she was never silly enough to try it again |-)
[quote]How was such a horrible drink ever invented in the first place?
[/quote]
Its an acquired taste, like so many of those things that put so many off on first taste.
Some prefer other beers, mostly the lagers and pilseners etc.
Mate of mine that I infected with the beer brewing bug often does remark
that a particular bitter is quite bitter and when he does, I agree that it does,
but I dont even notice that until he points it out with a particular brew.
I do like plenty of other beers too tho. In fact its only the insipid commercial
brews that I dont drink now unless the only alternative is water etc. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Rod Speed... |
| Posted: Sun Nov 08, 2009 2:44 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Bret Cahill wrote
[quote]Rod, you don't perchance drink that stuff they call "bitters" in the UK?
If you mean bitter, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bitter_(beer)
No one drinks that stuff outside the UK, do they?
[/quote]
Yep, hordes do in beer drinking countrys.
Even some of you primitive savages do
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bitter_(beer)#Bitter_outside_Britain
[quote]yes, in fact I make it myself.
That was obvious from your postings.
[/quote]
Hardly any of them are post any bitter.
[quote]Now answer one more question:
[/quote]
No way.
[quote]How many pints/post are you doing?
[/quote]
I normally only drink what we call a couple of stubbys a day, one before dinner and one with dinner.
A stubby is about 375ml, 1.5 puny US pints a day. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
The time now is Thu Dec 03, 2009 8:36 am
|
|