Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2009 July 21

Welcome to the Wikipedia Miscellaneous Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

July 21

How to get to Simi Valley from Mission Viejo

Usually if like school district or inter-county taxi was to go to Simi Valley from Misison Viejo will they take the 5 to the 118 or 405 to the 118. Anyways is it mor convenient to take the 5 to the 118 or the 405 to the 118. The 405 although distance is longer than use, is still less traffic congestions to take the 405 than the 5.--69.228.145.50 (talk) 00:36, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't have a lot of local knowledge, but I would think that it would somewhat depend on the time of day or week. You are probably right that I-5 tends to be more congested most of the time, and particularly during the work week, though I think almost any highway in LA will be tough during rush hour, and 405 goes past some major commute destinations around Long Beach, LAX, and Culver City. On weekends, I am guessing that I-5 would be the better bet; I'm guessing that I-405 is more congested on weekends since it goes past LAX and lots of recreational destinations whereas I-5 goes past mostly empty Downtown LA. Marco polo (talk) 01:47, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Google Maps suggests both routes. Via I-405 is a little longer (6 miles/5 mins), but it also advises that the 90 minutes travel time can be doubled in traffic. Using the live traffic reports feature, I see there is currently two sections of construction on I-5, though I-405 is more congested around Long Beach and Santa Monica. The Live traffic feature also allows you to show conditions at different times of day, so have a play. Astronaut (talk) 02:48, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

• What about Ventura? I still think we should take the 405 to the 101, this is what mapquest said would be the fastest. Dowtown LA (101 Hollywood Fwy) , traffic jam is just diamond solid, platinum plate, nickel gold, turbocharge inferno. The 405 is definitely better than then 101 and the 5 is to my opinion. Would anybody try to take the 5 to the 10 to get to Santa Monica? Then what will be the most convienient way to get frm Misison Viejo to Ventura? I wouldn't take the 101 to pass Downtown LA, I would most often and always take the 405 to the 101. To Arcadia is it better to take the 605 or the 57? What would you do?--69.228.145.50 (talk) 03:06, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Mapquest said to take the 405 to the 101 to Ventura. Via the 405 to the 101 is 4.8 miles (4 minutes longer) I suggest not to pass Dowtown LA on the 101. Most of map sites say to take the 405 to the 10 to Santa Monica, you can take the 5 to the 10 though. Distance is equivalently the same. To Arcaida, most sites say to take the 605 to the 210 up, 210 to the 57 down. Well the 57 goes through many of points in orange county, orange block, anaheim circus, then at diamond bar, the 57 merges and collides with the 60. Well, the 605 is a open empty land just a boring drive.--69.228.145.50 (talk) 03:22, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

And trust me or not taking the 5 to the 101 I say is NOT a good idea! No matter what the 101 in Downtown LA is WORSE than the 405. The 405 is not bad at all in orange county, take a look the 405 just past the 605 (orange-LA County line boundary) is 4 lanes, then near LAX, the 405 is like 5 lanes. The 5 to the 101 at the tip of orange county, lets say passing Knotts Berry Farm, down to 3 lanes, then the 101 begins via left exit on Five Level down to 2 or 3 lanes, until the 110/101 connector, the 101 widens again. They actually still doing construction on the 405 between the 10 and the 101. O and forgot about Universal Studio Hollywood, a solid-ack amusement park. The 101 goes through capitals of entertainments in Hollywood, Hollywood Bowls similar to Rose Bowls up in Pasadena. The 101 near the 110, is the place for Chinatown, Little Tokyo, Kor-town.--69.228.145.50 (talk) 03:43, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

What kind of shoes are these?

Okay, guys. Take a look at this picture:

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_WaOOu3Hlmpw/RyJFm8l2bOI/AAAAAAAAATI/fAPd-GMX51M/s1600-h/fotos+102.jpg

What kind of shoes is the guy on the far left wearing? DO WANT Dethmetal (talk) 03:31, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Isn't that a (gasp) Nike logo on the side? Twang (talk) 03:48, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

They look like Nike high-tops. If you are looking for the specific model of Nike shoe, then you might do better by emailing the pic to Nike's customer service people. Dismas|^(talk) 03:56, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I was looking for the specific model. I tried going on Nike's website, but when I try to go on to the customer service page, it doesn't load! Can anybody help me out? Dethmetal (talk) 20:13, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

USA university fees

in Australia the government has set up a scheme where if you can't afford to pay upfront fees to go to university, you dont pay straight away but start paying back a percantage over time once you start working and making money and can afford to pay it then. that way if you come from a poor family you still can become a graduate. do they have this scheme in the US. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Payneham (talk • contribs) 05:17, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

See student loans in the United States and student financial aid in general. --Carnildo (talk) 05:33, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

In the US, it is a cliche that doctors, in particular, have to work for years merely to pay back their student loans. Tempshill (talk) 05:43, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Also take not that many private universities offer generous amounts of financial aid money. That is, if you and your family can not afford to pay, money, in the form of grants, will be given to you. Acceptable (talk) 06:41, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

In general, for those with really no money at all, getting student aid that doesn't need to be paid back is not toooo terribly difficult. The trick is that a lot of people fall into a student aid "gap" where their parents earn enough money that they don't qualify for aid but realistically the tuition is a bit too much for them to reasonably pay. These people take out a lot of student loans. For higher education degrees that are expected to turn around a lot of money after graduation (business, law, medicine), loans are usually the only option. For those which are not expected to turn around money (e.g. graduate school, Ph.D. in English or History, etc.), the universities themselves usually subsidize the education through grants or teaching or both. This of course varies a lot from university to university and amongst the different "tiers" of universities. --98.217.14.211 (talk) 13:47, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Note also that students in a Commonwealth supported place in Australia pays (or defers) a heavily subsidised fee which is only a small percentage of the "full" fee paid by, say, an international student. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 22:45, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

The other alternative in the US is to join the military. After serving for three years, then after you leave the military the government pays most or all of your tuition plus a stipend. If you want to be a doctor the situation is more complex: the military pays for everything but you msut remain in as military doctor for some time. You end up debt-free more quickly than your civilian peers even if you started from poverty. Unfortuantely, the number of bright kids from poor families who figure this our early enough is very low, and many very bright poor kids end up in trouble of one sort or another and fail to even graduate from high school. Leaving aside the moral issues of the failure of society to these kids, the loss to the economy is horrific. -Arch dude (talk) 02:04, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

The purpose of the US military is not to provide a scholarship for kids from poor families. Joining the military is a life changing thing for both the individual who joins and their family. It's not just a job. The economy also suffers losses from people who joined [1] [2] and societies failures are many. 71.236.26.74 (talk) 02:18, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

US hospitals

Is it true if you have no insurance that US hospitals, even emergency departments, will turn you away and let you die? How can the US be such a cruel country? I cannot imagine this ever happening in Australia or a civilised country. What is wrong with you people that you think this is normal? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Payneham (talk • contribs) 04:20, July 21, 2009 (UTC)

It's not true. Emergency departments are required to treat anyone who comes in the door, which leads to problems where (expensive) emergency departments are some people's only source of medical care. --Carnildo (talk) 05:35, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Carnildo is correct on all counts. There is no need for alarm. There are government programs that are supposed to reimburse hospital emergency rooms for emergency care for those who are unable to pay, though there are, I understand, continual tugs-of-war about this. Medicaid is a government program that provides for medical treatment for the very poor in the US, but there is a large population that isn't quite poor enough to qualify, so their only medical care occurs when they are so sick they have to go to the emergency room. (My understanding is that illegal aliens also have a disproportionately large amount of their medical care take place in emergency rooms.) The result is that the public is apparently paying a lot more for medical care than they would for this population than if Medicaid were simply expanded to cover this population. As with everything about health care in the United States, this assertion is controversial. Tempshill (talk) 05:42, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Struck my "There is no need for alarm" claim, as actually health care in the US is too expensive for too little, and getting worse, and we need to shift to, I guess, an Australia-style medical system at once. Tempshill (talk) 05:46, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

The Australian system includes private insurance for anyone who wants it/can afford it, with higher income earners penalised a small amount on their tax if they don't take private insurance. (It starts from around $1000 a year). The insurance is available from numerous companies, but you deal with them directly, so there is strong competition between them, unlike where the insured is stuck with whatever their employer chose. Everyone is covered by the Government scheme, called Medicare; private insurance offers more choice, shorter waiting lists, and coverage for "extras (dental, optical, physiotherapy etc). Hospitals are financed by the States, with substantial Federal support.

The result is that nobody really knows what the costs are. I was recently shocked to see, in an emergency department, a notice to say that uninsured persons (ie tourists) would be charged $912 a day if they are admitted, up to $2400 for intensive care. Residents pay not one cent.- KoolerStill (talk) 08:54, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

(ec) Mind you, we have our issues, too. If you're so sick that you have to go to an emergency department immediately, you'll be treated immediately (more or less). There's no charge, but we all pay a tax levy for such treatment, so it's not really free. If it's necessary to admit you to hospital and you choose to be a private patient, there'll be a cost; this is usually not fully covered by private health insurance, assuming you have it, but you do get to choose your own doctor, which is an important thing for many people. But if you need certain kinds of operations for non-life-threatening conditions, such as a hip replacement, and you have no PHI and have to rely on the public system, you'll be placed in a waiting list and you may be waiting for literally years for treatment, depending on where you live - by which time the condition may have advanced quite considerably. But that's a worst case scenario and, from what I've gleaned of the U.S. system, I'd much rather be sick here than there.

Btw, overseas visitors can insure themselves against the costs of hospital treatment in Australia, and given the figures quoted by KoolerStill, they'd be very wise to do so.

And another btw, PHI can never guarantee shorter waiting lists; who is treated in which hospital at which time is always entirely the prerogative of the hospital; and the doctor of choice must have admission rights to the hospital otherwise they can't operate there at all; but in general terms, having PHI will usually mean you get more prompt treatment, in the hospital of your choice, by the doctor of your choice, in return for the cost of premiums and (usually) some out-of-pocket costs. And you pay the normal Medicare levy regardless, whether or not you ever get any benefit from it. -- JackofOz (talk) 09:24, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Just a note on the uninsured tourist: the government requires people over a certain age to have medical insurance from an Australian provider when visiting Australia - which means those most likely to get injured or sick (holding all things, such as participation in extreme sports, equal) - are insured while in the country.

Depending on the level of insurance one chooses, and one's income bracket, the medicare levy penalty for not having private hospital insurance can often exceed the cost of getting insurance, so it's no small incentive for getting insurance. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 09:40, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

But back to US Health Care. My wife and I are mid-50's and visit the USA quite frequently on holiday - usually the West Coast. We keep in pretty good health but I have a 20 year history of managed High Blood Pressure and managed raised cholesterol levels which are both well monitored and controlled. My wife suffers from osteo and rheumatoid arthritis and has an artificial knee replacement. Clearly, we would never dream of travelling outside Europe without private health insurance - but Boy, whenever we tell an insurer we intend to travel to the USA - you can hear the number-cruncher going into overdrive. Why?? Because I am seen as a Heart-Attack/Stroke risk who would cost a fortune to treat in the USA - and my wife is seen as a falling-down/tripping hazard for whom it would cost a fortune to treat any fractures etc. But if we want to travel there, we simply have no choice but to take the hit. One final comment though. We always answer every health question honestly and fully so yes - the premiums do go up automatically because of the perceived increased risks of insuring us. But what about the big fat alcohol guzzling chain smoking and grease gobbling guy sitting near us on the plane who can honestly say he has no medical history to report - to date - so he doesn't get charged any extra loading on his insurance premiums. Who really is the greater risk of a heart attack or stroke? Him or me? I leave the answer to you folks. 92.22.178.59 (talk) 09:58, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

92.22 if you doubt the risk-assessment capabilities of Life Insurance businesses you should probably take a look at their profitability. Smokers are charged a premium over non-smokers and heavy drinkers are liable to have exclusions or ratings, as are those that are notably overweight. Non-disclosure is always a risk but the company can only assess risk based on the information provided. If you believe that your high-blood pressure and raised-cholesterol mark a smaller risk than an overweight smoker that drinks you might want to spend some time thinking who has A) the better information at their disposal and B) the greater incentive to know the answer more definitively. The answer in both cases will (99.9% of the time) always be the insurance-company. 194.221.133.226 (talk) 10:16, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Life insurance and health insurance may be conducted along similar lines in some countries, but they're treated differently in Australia. You may have to undergo a medical examination for life insurance, and if you have certain conditions, you'll pay higher premiums. But our private health insurance system is run on a community rating basis, whereby everyone in the same state who takes out the same product from the same company must be charged the same premiums (apart from optional features such as different levels of excess, co-payment etc., which vary the premiums) - without regard to their current state of health or their medical history. The flip side is that treatment for any pre-existing condition is not covered for the first 12 months of membership. -- JackofOz (talk) 08:40, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

The points that 194.221 raised is an excellent one. Also if a the person you speak of has really never had any problems, and is of a young age (likely if they have really never had any problems) then I would say it's easily possible that you are in fact the one more likely to be at risk in the short term that travel insurance covers. Over 20 years, yes they may be a far bigger risk but not necessarily over the short term. Most importantly perhaps, it's worth remembering it's not you that actually suffers from the guy's behaviour. It's in fact everyone else who pays the normal premium. They are the ones who's risk profile is raised by this guy (and everyone else like him) albeit it's only likely to have a tiny effect. Of course the reason why the company does not consider these people is likely because the cost of requiring detailed assessments of everyone outweights any benefit they gain by assigning more accurate risk profiles Nil Einne (talk) 16:01, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Jeremy Clarkson has a story. He says the man who washes his cars on one of his trips to America had been badly burnt by his car exploding when rammed by a police car. The botched plastic sugrery cost half a million dollars, $15,000 of which came from the officer's insurance. Resulting in lifelong debt. The car-washer has dropped off the radar to avoid paying back money he hasn't got. Vimescarrot (talk) 10:44, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

In Australia the vehicle is compulsorily insured against personal injury to all others (and a small amount recently for the owner/driver)which pays for all medical expenses actually incurred (ie eventually repays the Government scheme for the cost of treatment). Other damages may or may not be paid, usually following a court case. Where there is no insurance (eg injury in an uninsured building) the person still gets the treatment they need, through the Medicare scheme. Nobody goes without the treatment they need, albeit they may have to wait for the less urgent things. - KoolerStill (talk) 14:33, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Is there any other country in the developed world that's got anywhere near as a bad a health system as the US? 78.146.215.136 (talk) 15:17, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Probably not possible to tell as there is not a solid way to compare systems to each other. Googlemeister (talk) 16:01, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, I don't know what you mean by "solid" — I suppose you mean "easy enough for people to understand and agree it's a fair measurement" — the health care in the United States article says that according to the WHO, the US is ranked 72nd in health care worldwide. So, 78, I think your question might be answered slightly differently as, "no, no other wealthy, industrialized country in the world has a worse health care system than the US." Health care reform is currently the top item in the US's national news, when Michael Jackson isn't being buried, of course. Tempshill (talk) 17:41, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Private healthcare? Worse than socialized healthcare? That's a new one on me.--WaltCip (talk) 18:28, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Then you have learned something new today. In USA we pay a fortune, but shareholders must take their cut at every stage in the process so the insurance companies are still desperate to cut costs wherever possible. APL (talk) 19:06, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Your comment surprises me, WaltCip. I live in Canada, and here, a great many people are horrified at the thought of American-style private health care. This isn't to say no one supports private health care (the Alberta government comes to mind in particular), but public health care is one of the things Canadians are traditionally proud of. So to us, the idea that private healthcare is worse than socialized healthcare is the norm, and your perception, while not entirely "a new one on us," would certainly be in the minority here. Cherry Red Toenails (talk) 19:18, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. As a Canadian, I would say most people I know here concede that the top tier health care in the US is better than Canadian care. However, as far as efficiency, effectiveness and value, I think most Canadians that know the stats would agree the Canadian system is better overall. But if I was a billionaire from somewhere else in the world, I wouldn't come to Canada to wait in line and receive standard medical care, I'd go to the States and receive extraordinary medical care at an extraordinary price. As for your comment on Alberta, Klein proposed a type of public-private system quite similar to the British system, although he only supported it for some procedures etc as I recall. Alberta made Alberta Blue Cross free to residents at the start of this year, meaning (I believe) full coverage is more available here than elsewhere in Canada. TastyCakes (talk) 19:49, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I disagree with that. While I agree, no millionare is generally going to wait aroun for the public healthcare system, it doesn't mean they will always go to the US. A number of countries have excellent private healthcare facilities and while the US is definitely one of the first places a person will consider, it isn't the only one Nil Einne (talk) 15:36, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

While it's *incredibly* biased, you might want to pick up Michael Moore's Sicko for an interesting comparison of the U.S. system with various public healthcare systems. Just remember to take it all with a pinch of salt. GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 19:42, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

One reason WaltCip may have said that is that he is probably American, and in America, "socialized health care" is a phrase of doom, politically. Opponents of it have seemed to succeed in making the phrase connote, "totalitarian and/or inept government bureaucrats are going to rob you of your health care". The word "rationing" is another term that is always used by opponents of American government-provided health care. The public seems to react particularly negatively to the latter term, ignoring the fact that there is already rationing in effect — it's just that the rationing is put into effect via how much money you are able and willing to pay. Also, for most Americans, there's an underlying belief related to the American dream that "worthy" people will have money, so if you aren't able to afford good health care, you are probably not a very worthy person anyway, so who cares if you get sicker than others. This whole paragraph sounds like a lot of OR but I believe it summarizes the attitudes of many Americans. Tempshill (talk) 20:04, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I have experience with both the Canadian and U.S. healthcare systems, so I can provide a bit of insight here. There are some advantages to the U.S. system. In America, there is no serious doctor shortage and far shorter waits for specialist visits and surgery. In fact, until the rise of HMOs, most Americans didn't even need a referral from a primary-care physician to get a specialist appointment. So traditionally, Americans have gotten better healthcare than Canadians -- if they have insurance. But most Americans do have insurance. That's why healthcare reform failed in the early 1990s -- most Americans, thinking individually rather than collectively, had something to lose in the adoption of a national healthcare plan. What's different now is that healthcare costs have spiraled so badly that many Americans can't afford even the co-payments or the stuff their healthcare plan might not cover. Many Americans are now "underinsured" -- they have insurance, but not enough insurance to protect them against possible catastrophic illness or injury. It's gotten to the point where many in the middle class, rather than just the unemployed and working poor, have something to gain through national healthcare. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 21:38, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

And if you are in the lower categories of healthcare (e.g. student healthcare) you have very, very little covered at all. It's basically accident insurance with a smattering of regular maintenance thrown in, and everything with co-payments and surcharges. (And insurance companies trying to avoid paying for everything possible. That's right, my yearly physical was purely cosmetic, of no medical necessity, sure. I get examined because it's fun.) Anyway I think the point in particular that the problems in the US healthcare system have hit the middle classes (where basically everyone has had or knows someone who has had major problems dealing with their insurance in the times in which it was really needed) is what is pushing reform at the moment. Caring about the uninsured makes for nice speeches but hasn't translated into real policy here; the insured-but-not-well situation makes a lot of people (myself included) looking enviously at the public health programs of Europe and elsewhere. --98.217.14.211 (talk) 23:48, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

In New Zealand there is cover for all injuries which is provided by the Accident Compensation Corporation. This has changed in numerous ways thorough the years and is likely to change somewhat now given the new government but at it's core works to compensate people (in other words even if those injuries are self inflicted and for any tourists in New Zealand) who suffer injuries (this means it generally pays for all ongoing treatement at least while the person remains in New Zealand as well as stuff like lost wages, home and vehicle modification when necessary) and to try and prevent injuries from occuring (e.g. by working with employers). It is funded in a number of ways. It operates under a no fault basis therefore you can't sue for damages if someone injures you which has it disadvantages but also prevents the lottery of what can happen if someone injures. Of course the person or people responsible may still be prosecuted if they break the law (e.g dangerous driving) Nil Einne (talk) 16:01, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

"Australia or a civilised country"? Heh. — One thing seriously wrong with medicine in These United States goes back to WW2 wage controls. Employers offered fringe benefits such as medical insurance to entice workers without raising nominal wages. Then employment-based insurance was made non-taxable, which means it's much cheaper for most people than getting medical insurance any other way — so the whole industry is structured on the assumption of employment-based insurance, which, besides being an Awesomely Stupid way to organize anything, means two degrees of disconnection between the consumer and the payer (vs just one with private insurance). —Tamfang (talk) 04:08, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

LOL, good catch. We (other?) Aussies missed that. - KoolerStill (talk) 03:33, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Why does nobody ever consider the fact that a nation of what, 30 million, might be able to do some things that another nation, with *ten times* the population, can't do?209.244.30.221 (talk) 11:49, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Care to elaborate? The relationship between "having a larger population" and "not having an effective health system" is not trivial. Why do you think a public health system is not scalable? --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 04:44, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Because it's not just cost - it's doctors. If you have 10 times the people, but only 5 times the doctors, the wait is twice as long, and so the chance of getting propercare goes way down. It is, of course, theoretically possible to have the same doctor/pattient ratio, but it seems, just from thinking, that it's a *lot* tougher to get that many more people itnerested in going through 4 years of college, 4 years of medical school,a nd all that residency.

Of course, I haven't checked the doctor/patient ratio in the United States versus other countries, so I could be wrong.209.244.30.221 (talk) 00:35, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Why would it be a lot tougher? You have a lot larger pool of candidates of people who could become doctors. According to [3] BTW the ratio in the US and Australia is about the same Nil Einne (talk) 15:29, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the ratio; that was interesting. As for why, purely original research here, but from what I've seen, there doesn't seem to be the incentive in the United States for people to become doctors. Granted, that might be because of things like high liability premiums, hassles with insurance cmopanies, etc.. But, I doubt that's all of it.So, in short, just becasue there's a larger pool to pick from doesn't mean that people would line up to become doctors. Now, if the government gave huge incentives to people to make it through medical school (there was something about eliminating medical school loans past a certain amount after so long, which will help a lot, I think), that would be a different story.209.244.187.155 (talk) 18:09, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

This thread seems to have shifted into a debate on health care systems. Getting back to the original question, my understanding (and I don't have a reliable source for this; it only comes from fiction TV shows that are supposed to get this sort of thing right) is that hospitals in the US are required to treat emergency cases even if they think or know there's no payment coming -- but only while the situation is still an emergency. What they aren't required to do is provide followup care. If a hospital is private and run for profit, as soon as it's no longer an emergency they'll discharge the patient. Out of decency they may try to turn over, or at least direct, the patient to another facility, probably a less well equipped, that's community-owned or charity-supported and that does see its job as including cases it won't be paid for. Perhaps someone can provide cites to support or refute what I have said. --Anonymous (Canadian), 21:45 UTC, July 21, 2009.

"Community owned" hospitals are somewhat of a rarity nowadays. Over the past couple of decades virtually all of them have been privatized. APL (talk) 13:34, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

In 2005, there were still 1,110 community hospitals owned by state or local governments, down from 1,778 in 1980. (http://www.census.gov/prod/2007pubs/08abstract/health.pdf) -- Mwalcoff (talk) 20:59, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

I've also seen it suggested that even when it is an emergency the quality of care you will receive will depend on your ability to pay. For example, if they don't think you can pay, they may amputate your leg even if it could be saved with expensive treatment. The issue of people using emergencies departments as their frontline health care has been mention, however it's not only a problem in the US. In many countries with free emergency healthcare but where the primary healthcare (GP) is not free, this can be a problem. Given that emergency departments are costly to run and also someone will usually wait longer before seeking help and obviously not go for regular health checks this is a problem in numerous ways. In NZ, for this and a number of reasons, primary healthcare is partially subisidised at a community based 'needs' (mostly income and race I believe) level. For extremely low income earners and beneficiarys, there is also the community services card which can provide some additional funding [4] Nil Einne (talk) 15:31, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

The Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA) "requires hospitals and ambulance services to provide care to anyone needing emergency treatment regardless of citizenship, legal status or ability to pay.." That's been law in the U.S. since 1986. 152.16.16.75 (talk) 01:11, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Sandbags

When was the sandbag invented? --Carnildo (talk) 05:31, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

As far as we know, late-eighteenth century. See sandbag.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 10:51, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

The concept of "sandbagging" (i.e. "hustling") was probably invented long before the actual term was. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 02:48, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Casio DW 6900 G-Shock Watch

Does anyone know where I can get a user manual for a Casio DW 6900 G-Shock Watch or know how to change from 12 hour to 24 hour time format ? Scotius (talk) 12:57, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Have you tried Casio's website? Try this link: Casio watch manual search, and enter the "module number" in the search box. The module number is marked on the back cover of your watch. --Zerozal (talk) 13:56, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

or try searching for "casio dw 6900 manual", clicking on the first link, clicking "download manual" etc http://ftp.casio.co.jp/pub/world_manual/wat/en/qw1289.pdf

Did you even try to look?83.100.250.79 (talk) 15:51, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes I was looking, when I tried the website I got no results. But thanks anyway, the second one you suggested was useful.Scotius (talk) 12:14, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Personality and dress color / type - a small test

Dress can be used project personality, is the reverse true?. Iam male and prefer to wear single colored dresses that are full arm, whether it be a pullover or a shirt. I do not like stripes or checks or even a large logo. Neither do I like bright/cheerful colors, except white which isn't really a color. Most colors in my wardrobe are black, gray and darkblue. Iam becoming sceptical about the theory that one can judge a person by the dress he/she prefers to wear. Perhaps I could be wrong. To test the theory, please try to predict my personality or character. After a few days, I'll give a honest feedback regarding the accuracy of this theory. 131.220.46.25 (talk) 13:27, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

"Research" like this really isn't the remit of the Ref Desk. I note particularly that there's no validity to any conclusions that are drawn as a result of your proposal. You've not provided a sufficient test population, there's no control, the testers aren't documented, there are no defined criteria for our judgment (what defines personality or character?), there are no defined criteria for your judgment (what constitutes "accuracy"?), and so forth. You may be interested in our article on cold reading, which is all this amounts to. — Lomn 13:38, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

How you dress can be a reasonably accurate predictor of your personality. You may also be interested in Malcolm Gladwell's book 'Blink' in which he references a study that showed people could accurately predict people's personalities by simply seeing a photograph of their bedroom (in this case dorm-room). As it stands I would expect that more could be 'read' into the way you presented the information about yourself than the information itself..."neither do I like bright/colorful", "white - which isn't really a color" as well as a number of "I do not"s. All of these influence how I assume you to be as much as what you describe. 194.221.133.226 (talk) 14:36, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I'd love to know how you get the idea that "How you dress can be a reasonably accurate predictor of your personality". I wear a suit to work because it's the dress code expected of me. Then in the evenings I go out and wear baggy jumpers, combat trousers and DMs. What does that tell you about me? Answer: precisely nothing. --Richardrj ^{talk email} 12:11, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

From the opening remarks in your question I would hazard a guess you are a transvestite??? 92.22.178.59 (talk) 14:40, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

That occurred to me too, but there are some hints the OP is not a native speaker, so I wouldn't necessarily draw that conclusion.

OP: "Dress" is the general term for clothing; "a dress" (s.) or "dresses" (pl.) refers specifically to an item normally worn only by women. Or male transvestites. -- JackofOz (talk) 21:35, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

JackofOz: you are indeed right, iam not a native speaker. Thanks for telling me about the word usage though. user with ip address - 194.221.133.226 : can you predict my personality reasonably acurately from my dress?. For the sake of curiosness What have you inferred about my perosnality from a lot of "I do not"s?.

Do you have a fact-based question? This is the Reference Desk. Tempshill (talk) 16:23, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

131, I infer that you are not flamboyant, and probably don't spend a lot of time drinking or dancing. Did you expect us to say you're depressive, or something? —Tamfang (talk) 06:32, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Gilad_Shalit

Is Gilad_Shalit alive? According to the article some people believe that yes. However, where is the evidence. In the links I see no evidence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Quest09 (talk • contribs) 16:36, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I doubt that anyone here at the Reference Desk has any information beyond what's in the article, particularly the section about 2009 developments. Tempshill (talk) 17:26, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

REV Patrick Murundu Andieli

I have removed this (duplicate) message as it is entirely irrelevant to the wikipedia reference desk and contains personal information. ny156uk (talk) 16:53, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Ammendment 21 of US Constitution

Did any national level legislator who originally voted to pass the 18th amendment on the prohibition of alchohol publicly apologize for what was obviously bad legislation and then vote in favor of repealing the 18th amendment? Googlemeister (talk) 20:14, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

No national-level legislators voted to pass either amendment (at least not in their capacity as legislators); the 18th was passed by 3/4 majority of state legislatures and the 21st was passed by 3/4 majority of state-level conventions (the only amendment to have been passed in such a method). The US Congress' involvement was limited to proposing the amendments. Is this pedantic? Somewhat. However, it's important to recognize that Congress specifically chose a new method of ratification to overturn a prior amendment. It's additionally worth noting that Congress proposing an amendment is not tantamount to passage of the same. — Lomn 20:27, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

From a pedantic point of view, I think "pass" in the question must be interpreted as including both the "proposal" by Congress and the "ratification" in the different states. Since the question refers to "national-level legislators", the ratification process can be ignored and it resolves to: "Which members of Congress, if any, voted in favor of both amendments and made a public apology for having voted in favor of the 18th?" I assume the voting details, at least, are on record somewhere: anyone know exactly where to look? --Anonymous, 21:35 UTC, July 21, 2009.

Why? Would we similarly single out the subcommittee that reviewed an eventually-unpopular bill? Congress doesn't vote "in favor" of an amendment; they vote in favor of letting the states decide. — Lomn 23:26, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Congress did pass the Volstead Act, of course. Algebraist 23:30, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

We are singling out Congress because the original poster asked about "national-level legislators". And no amendment gets passed without a supermajority in both houses of Congress. That is certainly a vote in favor of it. --Anon, 03:30 UTC, July 22, 2009.

No, it's a vote in favor of presenting it for consideration. The US Congress cannot amend the Constitution; therefore, the US Congress is incapable of voting in favor or against amending the Constitution, except with a symbolic resolution of support. It is a simple matter for a congressman to oppose an amendment, yet find it an important issue worthy of consideration, and thus vote it for consideration. Likewise, a congressman can support an issue, yet find it a matter unsuitable for an amendment, and vote against its consideration. This cannot be reasonably conflated with a binding vote for or against legislation. — Lomn 13:34, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

No there is a vote in favor of letting the states express their opinions about the matter. Not the same as endorsing it. I often sign petitions to get candidates on a ballot despite not having any desire to vote for them or their party but merely because I think a broad group should have the opportunity to run and present their ideas. 75.41.110.200 (talk) 13:37, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

"The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution," Then couldn't a vote be considered a list of lawmakers who deemed the amendment necessary? APL (talk) 18:45, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

That was my interpretation. Googlemeister (talk) 18:55, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

A vote could be deemed such, but as I (and 75.) have noted, that would be incorrect. The vote constitutes a list of lawmakers who think the amendment is worth sending to the several states. It does not carry any formal or implicit statement of approval. — Lomn 19:29, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Please stop repeating this silly position. Deciding it's "worth sending to the several states" is a statement of approval. --Anonymous, 00:56 UTC, July 23, 2009.

Lomn - "I think this law is necessary" is different to "I support this law"? How? Are you saying that a lawmaker who votes for "I think this law is necessary" is actually against it? Or is indifferent??

I believe you are conflating two steps in the mechanism. Two thirds of lawmakers vote for the law, then Congress proposes that the law ("proposes" here is used instead of "passes" since a further mechanism is required for the amendment to pass), which is put to the states. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 04:40, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I think what Lomn is trying to say is "I think that further discussion about this law is necessary" is different than "I think we should have this law". That is, it is possible for a person to believe that a subject is worth presenting for discussion, debate, and approval without actually supporting the subject yourself. As a counter arguement, a person could believe that an amendment would fail if presented to the states, and thus would want to hasten its presentation to said states to bring about its failure, especially if he believed that opinions would later change to make it more likely to pass in the future. So in such a case, a Congressman would actually support proposing the amendment even though he was against the actual amendment. The point is, on any straight roll-call vote, we have no evidence of WHY someone voted for something except based on the text of the actual bill. Since the bill in question would have merely been to present an amendment for consideration to the states, we cannot say that that approval of the presentation is equivalent to approval of the ammendment itself. --Jayron32 05:14, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

This is hair-splitting. I suppose it's theoretically possible that a member of Congress might vote for an amendment on the theory that the several states will defeat it now, but might pass it in say, ten years, and vote for it even though he/she opposes it. That would be a form of strategic voting. But let's be clear: Congress is not voting to present the amendment to the several states; they're voting for or against the amendment. Congress and the states must both approve it for it to pass. --Trovatore (talk) 21:03, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) I think that's cutting too fine a distinction than is necessary. In any multi-step process, you could argue that any one decision maker is not "really" supporting the decision, but merely hastening its demise by sending it to the next step. For example, in a bi-cameral parliament, some members of the lower house (say) could well be voting for the bill in order to hasten its passage to the upper house where he or she knows it will be defeated. That subjective psychological element, however, does not change the fact that the member voted for the bill, at leat in form, physically.

Similarly, given that a legislator who votes for the amendment is at least formally "deeming the law necessary", then in form at least the physical act of voting to send it on to the next stage is, in perhaps less-than-absolutely-rigorous common parlance, voting for the bill. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 00:38, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Nope, that analogy doesn't hold. In your bicameral legislature, passage means the bill is adopted as law. That's the end step. "Hastening its defeat in the upper house" is meaningless; a defeat in the lower house is equally a defeat, and consideration in the upper house can occur regardless of what the lower house does. This is distinct from the constitutional amendment process of the US. — Lomn 03:54, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Members of bicameral Westminster legislatures normally vote along party lines. A member of either house would be unlikely to vote for a bill if his party was against it, or vice-versa; it sometimes happens, though (this is called "crossing the floor" or "voting against the wishes of the party"). Barring that circumstance, parties normally vote the same way on a bill in each house; so that, even if an Opposition doesn't have the numbers in the lower house to block an undesirable bill (which they don't, which is why they're in opposition), they can still signify their opposition to it by voting against it, and their colleagues in the upper house may well have the numbers (sometimes requiring support from other parties or independents) to actually block it. But all this is not analagous to the US situation when it comes to amending their Constitution. If individual congressmen are in favour of an amendment, they'll obviously support a bill going to the states for consideration. But if they're against it, they still might prefer to let the states decide. Congress is never asked whether or not it supports the amendment per se, so whatever votes they have there can't be used to determine their position on it. All they're asked is whether or not they support the measure being referred to the states for consideration, and as has been pointed out above, a Congressman who detests a proposed amendment may well vote Yes to send it to the states for consideration, in the hope that he'll find sufficient support out there for his position to have the matter put to rest, hopefully forever. Or, he might feel that the states are always entitled to have a say in the matter, no matter what his personal position may happen to be. -- JackofOz (talk) 20:56, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

No no no, this is completely misconceived. It's not that the several states decide on amendments and the Congress's role is solely to determine what gets voted on. Amendments are passed by Congress and the states; their role is equal, even if the states vote later.

The argument being made is analogous to saying that when Congress enacts an ordinary law, they're not really voting for it, but only to give the president the option to enact it or veto it. --Trovatore (talk) 21:17, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

It's still true to say that an individual Congressman may despise a proposed amendment to the Constitution but still vote to pass it so that the states can consider it. -- JackofOz (talk) 21:34, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it is. But it's not accurate to say he's not voting for it. If he's trying to kill it, that's strategic voting, but it still counts as a vote for it.

Here's an analogous situation with roughly the same probability. Are you familiar with American football? There's a possible situation where your team is ahead by, say, two points, but the other team is driving inside your ten-yard line, with time running out. If you try to make a goal-line stand and deny them, they will score at least a field goal, to go ahead by one point, and in the mean time they will eat up the clock, leaving you without a chance to respond.

A much-despised, but possibly rational, tactic in this situation is to deliberately go soft and allow the other team to score a touchdown, getting the ball back with time enough to do something about it. It practically never happens (it did, in a recent Super Bowl, but Green Bay was excoriated for it in the press). Voting for an amendment because you think now is the time for the several states to vote it down, is about as likely as that. --Trovatore (talk) 21:43, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

¶ Whoa! This exchange has wandered far away from the original factual questions posed (clearly to me, although not precisely enough for others) by Googlemeister:

1. Did any U.S. Senator or U.S. Representative who voted to submit the 18th Amendment to the states for ratification subsequently vote to submit the 21st Amendment to them for ratification?
2. If any such member of Congress did vote to submit both Amendments, did he or she apologize for having voted to submit the 18th?

Almost all of the responses submitted so far have either quibbled over the possible reasons for an "aye" vote, or provided possible rationales for such a hypothetical apology. But if such an apology exists, one would want to know its text or import, rather than what we think such an explanation (for either the original vote or for declining to apologize outright) might say.

I don't know the answers, but the roll-call votes will be found in The Congressional Record, which wasn't yet available on-line for the relevant decades the last time I looked, but certainly exists on paper and in microfilm. There are a host of other possible sources, including the archives of The New York Times (free before 1923, but requiring payment or subscription between then and 1989). Once you find someone who voted for both amendments' submission, you could search the Record's index or Google for that legislator's name to see his or her rationale. —— Shakescene (talk) 05:24, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Distance is longer while average traveling time is about the same

how could sometimes when a modify route plan, lets say from Mission Viejo to Ventura when we via the 405 to the 101, the distance is 4.8 miles longer while the average traveling time is only 2 minutes longer than the 5 to the 101? I always thought via the 405 to Ventura is a better bet on average. Is it the speed limit on the 101 is less than the 405. Is US Route's average speed limit 10 minutes shorter than the interstate. Is US freeway's speed limit 55 miles, the State Routes non-at grade intersection same as interstates highway. Could this be why it is faster to travel on interstate/intrastates than US Highways? I don't think the 405 is as congestive as you think. The 101 goes through Chinatown, Hollywood industrial center, alot of capitals of entertainment, yea and Hollywood Bowl. yea ha! The 101 would obviously be bad on weekends, at rush hour yeah, while 405 is just airports. Then which route on average is the safest way to get to Ventura? Will 5 to the 134 to the 101 help? I don't know if the 134 will be this helpful.--69.228.145.50 (talk) 23:46, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

This confusing question is all over the place. In the future please try asking a single, shorter question. Firstly, if the distance of route A is longer than the distance of route B but the travel times are about the same, it simply indicates that route A is a faster route, which I think you know; so this indicates the 405 would indeed be a better bet on average. All your questions about freeway congestion on individual freeways are too general because it totally depends on which direction is being discussed and the time of day; some freeways are worse going northbound in the morning, others worth going southbound in the morning; it mostly depends on the vast population's commute direction. Weekend traffic is always lighter. I would advise looking at the Caltrans maps at various times of day if you are interested in trying to gauge the speeds of different roads. Tempshill (talk) 04:02, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

• The site you gave me is San Diego County. The ones I want is Los Angeles-orange county. I don't kno wwher to find the ones for Los Angeles-orange county, so help me quickly.--69.228.145.50 (talk) 21:57, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
• Never mind, I found it.--69.228.145.50 (talk) 22:09, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

• Found it but they didn't tell us what color mean. We normal know when color is greener lighter traffic, orange, then heavier is the traffic. But I don't know what gray menas. They don't even have a legend telling us what the color means. They didn't even let us see the portions of orange county. Is there a better source?--69.228.145.50 (talk) 22:12, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Caltrans is the best source of these maps. Explore the site for other counties; they should have Orange County but may not have, for example, Kern County. As for what the colors mean, I believe that gray means "no speed estimate available on that road"; and if you click on the actual colored stretch of road, off to the left it gives you actual speed estimates:

Speed and Travel Time

W @ LORENA

Westbound: 58 mph

Eastbound: 70 mph

Tempshill (talk) 04:17, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I found an Orange County traffic map that uses Java and is ugly and clunky, but each circle can be clicked to tell you the approximate traffic speed at that location. Tempshill (talk) 04:21, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

This one for Orange county [5] isn't as fancy as the metro map but loads faster than the java one. Google maps has a traffic tab. It doesn't have accidents or cameras. (I hope you have meanwhile figured out that if you select "accitdents" or "Cameras" on the metro map sidebar you can get a report on what is blocked and for how long by clicking on the warning triangles. If you click on the little camera icons you can get images of the traffic.} Hope this helps. 71.236.26.74 (talk) 05:11, 23 July 2009 (UTC)