A computer components & hardware forum. HardwareBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » HardwareBanter forum » General Hardware & Peripherals » Printers
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

warehouse club warning



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #131  
Old April 10th 05, 03:53 PM
Arthur Entlich
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

You want it both ways. The reason so many people in the US cannot
afford health care, why the cost of medical insurance is so high, and
why the quality is so variable, is due to the business model used. The
"market" determines the value, and since most of us eventually require
healthcare of some sort, we are willing to pay whatever it costs, even
allowing ourselves to get bankrupted doing it.

By constraining costs by maintaining a socialized medical system, where,
at least, in principle, all doctors get the same base wages within a
category, and all people have equal access, the playing field remains
relatively even.

Once you allow individuals to opt out of the plan and go private, the
best doctors will tend to leave the nationalized health plan because
they can make more by opening private clinic. That leaves the mediocre
doctors to care for those who can't afford private medicine or private
insurance.

They tried this in England, and the system is completely failing. There
are two distinct tiers of medicine now, the "national plan" for those on
fixed incomes, the poor, those out of work, and the "private plan" which
is for those who have money in the bank or good benefits.

Health care in Canada is rationed. It's not some service like getting
your nails done. When people need it, they need it. I agree that
waiting periods are too long. This is part of the sabotage going on to
make people demand something else (like private or pay as you go services).

Canada still has one of the best nationalized health services in the
world. Our population lives longer and is healthier, and dollar per
dollar our system is cheaper than the US by quite a bit, and the
services there aren't great in most cases. Mal-practice insurance fees
are out of the stratosphere, pediatricians are all but giving up because
the cost of the insurance due to the high risk and liability of
delivering children is not affordable.

Creating a two tier health system will eventually be the end of
nationalized health care in this country, and when that occurs you will
be at the mercy of the private companies exclusively.

We need to put more money into healthcare and clean up Ottawa, so that
the money that is earmarked for health goes there.

Unless you have lived in the US and had to pay a few hundred bucks every
time you go to the doctor and lab, you might obtain a different
perspective as to how valuable the health care system we have is.

Art




gary wrote:

I would like to be able to pay for it here. Why should I not be able to if
I want the service? If a doctor or hospital wants to set up privately, what
business is that of the state to say no? I'm not saying I want to pay out
of pocket but I would like the option to buy the insurance with possibly a
deductible. Canada is only one of 3 countries in the world that do not
allow the individual this option.


"Arthur Entlich" wrote in message
news:iPu5e.8637$yV3.7959@clgrps12...

Since you want to pay for private medical, go down and find out what it
really costs, and the quality of it. (I already know, because my family
lives in the states, and the costs are unbelievable, particularly if
hospitalization is required).

But your problem is simple to get around. You might even get part of in
reimbursed by your provincial gov't, but if not, so what, you say you want
to pay out of pocket, right?

So, why are you allowing your wife to suffer with her ear problem when the
solution is a few miles down the road? Are there "communists" at the
border who won't let the two of you go to the US and pay? Maybe you can
stay with your friends down there, so you don't have any lodging costs.

Art

gary wrote:


"Pavel Dvorak" wrote in message
...


Matt Silberstein ) writes:

[lot nuked]



Oh, you mean socialized medicine? Doesn't work. Many countries try
it,

Works well in Costa Rica and Canada.


It's really outside the comp.periphs.printers topics, but I cannot
resist:

Canadian health care system does not work. If you have to endure many
months of pain before you can get an 'elective' surgery, like a hip
replacement or fixing a herniated disk, or have to helplessly wait for
diagnosis and then cancer treatment knowing full well that it may be too
late
when your turn in the hospital comes - and the law does not alow you
to get it done fast privately if you want and can pay, then something
is wrong, isn't there?

(Well, unless you subscribe to the idea that if two people are drowning
and you know you can save just one of them, you let both of them drown,
because saving one would be unfair to the other you could not save.)

Canadian health care system is OK for you if you a

(a) rich enough to buy any urgent treatment outside the country, or
(b) a high level politician or athlete who gets an immediate attention,
or
(c) generally healthy and all you need is to buy some aspirin

from time to time.

Pavel

[rest nuked]


I cant let that go either. We have excellent care when you get in. That
is WHEN you get in. Good post here I like your analogy about the
drowning. The RCMP get in ASAP, politicians get in ASAP, hockey players
get in ASAP and WCB claims get in ASAP and people who can afford it go to
the US. The average Joe waits. My wife has been waiting 8 months to see
a specialist about an ear problem. We have friends in the US who say she
would be in under a week. I would pay for that service here if the
communists in power would let me. But alas like the only other 2
jurisdiction in the world, North Korea and Cuba, we are not allowed
private health care.




  #132  
Old April 12th 05, 04:16 AM
gary
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

There are people out there who think the present model of health care can
survive if we just keep throwing money at it. Where does this money come
from? My taxes have only been going up and up and are taking a greater
percentage of my income every year. Those Americans with good health care
can afford the premiums and enjoy much lower tax rates. If we had the lower
tax rates here we could also afford to buy excellent health care coverage.
Lets not always compare two tiered health care to the US. There are much
better models around the world which we will have to one day (soon)
seriously look into. Ralph Klein is the only Premier thinking ahead.
Health care cost are spiraling upward exponentionally. The population is
aging - increasing the use on the system, and we do not have the population
growth needed to sustain this system. Waiting lines only get longer and
longer - even though in Alberta we are pumping more and more money into the
system every year. As a side note, I heard a fellow say on a talk show the
other day that Sweden has NO waiting list. You need the service, you are
in. I am enclosing an excellent article from the Western Standard to help
us all think "outside the box".

Two-Tier health works all around the world

Monday, 11 October 2004
Candis McLean


When it comes to health care, Canadians seem convinced there are only two
options: the Canadian way, with our universal health system and no access to
privately funded medical procedures; or the American way, with no guaranteed
care and many citizens left uninsured. Yet in reality there are as many
different options as there are countries in the developed world, and of all
the models out there, Canada is getting the least bang for its health care
buck, according to health analyses conducted by the Vancouver-based Fraser
Institute.

Of 30 developed countries in the world, all but two--the U.S. and
Mexico--have programs that ensure access to care regardless of ability to
pay, Nadeem Esmail, a health policy analyst for the free market think tank,
told the audience at a Calgary luncheon in June. Of the 28 remaining
countries with universal health care access, every single one of them also
allows access to private care for those citizens who choose it. "If you look
at the four health care systems with the best measurable health
outcomes--Sweden, France, Australia and Japan--all of them allow patients to
contract for private care," Esmail says. "If you look at the seven countries
that have no waiting lists, the same is true." Even the United Kingdom, the
system upon which Canada's was based, permits a parallel private health care
system that offers the same services as those provided by the public sector,
and allows its residents to buy from private insurers and health providers.
Of developed countries, "only Canada disallows the delivery of privately
funded services," says Esmail. Yet while Canada has the highest age-adjusted
spending on health (10.8 per cent of GDP, compared to 7.2 per cent in the
U.K.), Canada does not rank first in access to care, supply technologies or
number of physicians.

According to Esmail, better health outcomes for money spent enjoyed by other
governments worldwide often come when health policies permit cost-sharing
between patient and government. The majority of developed countries require
patients to pay "nominal or not-so-nominal fees" to access physicians, says
Esmail. That leads to less demand, as people are less likely to abuse a
system that is not entirely free, with no detrimental effect on health.
Esmail holds up Australia as an example Canada might want to emulate. There,
roughly 15 per cent of total health care expenditures come from patients'
pockets. Physicians can bill any amount they wish, but the government
reimburses patients only 85 per cent of a standard fee it has established.

In addition, he says, there are major advantages gained by allowing the
contracting-out of services to the private sector. Even though bills may
still be covered largely by taxpayers, allowing private clinics to operate
leads to greater efficiencies through competition--without disenfranchising
the poor or financially ruining citizens facing catastrophic medical
expenses.

The key lesson for Canadians, he says, is that allowing privately funded
purchases of core health services, and allowing the private sector to
deliver that care, means a better system, because patients are getting the
care they want and are not simply stuck with accepting the care the
government will deliver to them--no matter how inadequate it may be.

While many Canadian politicians warn that allowing any private care will
result in so-called two-tier health care, implying that some Canadians will
have access to better care than others, Esmail says we're already there. "A
survey out of Ontario found that 80 per cent of physicians had been involved
in cases where patients had received preferential access to care for
non-medical reasons," he says. Wealthy Canadians--and even high-ranking
politicians--can fly to the U.S. or other countries for care, while the
well-connected pull strings to get themselves faster access to the
treatments they need. "This means that good Canadians waiting in queue for
what the government is going to give them are the ones to suffer," says
Esmail.


"Arthur Entlich" wrote in message
news:L5b6e.17160$vt1.4135@edtnps90...
You want it both ways. The reason so many people in the US cannot
afford health care, why the cost of medical insurance is so high, and
why the quality is so variable, is due to the business model used. The
"market" determines the value, and since most of us eventually require
healthcare of some sort, we are willing to pay whatever it costs, even
allowing ourselves to get bankrupted doing it.

By constraining costs by maintaining a socialized medical system, where,
at least, in principle, all doctors get the same base wages within a
category, and all people have equal access, the playing field remains
relatively even.

Once you allow individuals to opt out of the plan and go private, the
best doctors will tend to leave the nationalized health plan because
they can make more by opening private clinic. That leaves the mediocre
doctors to care for those who can't afford private medicine or private
insurance.

They tried this in England, and the system is completely failing. There
are two distinct tiers of medicine now, the "national plan" for those on
fixed incomes, the poor, those out of work, and the "private plan" which
is for those who have money in the bank or good benefits.

Health care in Canada is rationed. It's not some service like getting
your nails done. When people need it, they need it. I agree that
waiting periods are too long. This is part of the sabotage going on to
make people demand something else (like private or pay as you go
services).

Canada still has one of the best nationalized health services in the
world. Our population lives longer and is healthier, and dollar per
dollar our system is cheaper than the US by quite a bit, and the
services there aren't great in most cases. Mal-practice insurance fees
are out of the stratosphere, pediatricians are all but giving up because
the cost of the insurance due to the high risk and liability of
delivering children is not affordable.

Creating a two tier health system will eventually be the end of
nationalized health care in this country, and when that occurs you will
be at the mercy of the private companies exclusively.

We need to put more money into healthcare and clean up Ottawa, so that
the money that is earmarked for health goes there.

Unless you have lived in the US and had to pay a few hundred bucks every
time you go to the doctor and lab, you might obtain a different
perspective as to how valuable the health care system we have is.

Art




gary wrote:

I would like to be able to pay for it here. Why should I not be able to
if
I want the service? If a doctor or hospital wants to set up privately,
what
business is that of the state to say no? I'm not saying I want to pay
out
of pocket but I would like the option to buy the insurance with possibly
a
deductible. Canada is only one of 3 countries in the world that do not
allow the individual this option.


"Arthur Entlich" wrote in message
news:iPu5e.8637$yV3.7959@clgrps12...

Since you want to pay for private medical, go down and find out what it
really costs, and the quality of it. (I already know, because my family
lives in the states, and the costs are unbelievable, particularly if
hospitalization is required).

But your problem is simple to get around. You might even get part of in
reimbursed by your provincial gov't, but if not, so what, you say you
want
to pay out of pocket, right?

So, why are you allowing your wife to suffer with her ear problem when
the
solution is a few miles down the road? Are there "communists" at the
border who won't let the two of you go to the US and pay? Maybe you can
stay with your friends down there, so you don't have any lodging costs.

Art

gary wrote:


"Pavel Dvorak" wrote in message
...


Matt Silberstein ) writes:

[lot nuked]



Oh, you mean socialized medicine? Doesn't work. Many countries try
it,

Works well in Costa Rica and Canada.


It's really outside the comp.periphs.printers topics, but I cannot
resist:

Canadian health care system does not work. If you have to endure many
months of pain before you can get an 'elective' surgery, like a hip
replacement or fixing a herniated disk, or have to helplessly wait for
diagnosis and then cancer treatment knowing full well that it may be
too
late
when your turn in the hospital comes - and the law does not alow you
to get it done fast privately if you want and can pay, then something
is wrong, isn't there?

(Well, unless you subscribe to the idea that if two people are drowning
and you know you can save just one of them, you let both of them drown,
because saving one would be unfair to the other you could not save.)

Canadian health care system is OK for you if you a

(a) rich enough to buy any urgent treatment outside the country, or
(b) a high level politician or athlete who gets an immediate attention,
or
(c) generally healthy and all you need is to buy some aspirin

from time to time.

Pavel

[rest nuked]


I cant let that go either. We have excellent care when you get in.
That
is WHEN you get in. Good post here I like your analogy about the
drowning. The RCMP get in ASAP, politicians get in ASAP, hockey players
get in ASAP and WCB claims get in ASAP and people who can afford it go
to
the US. The average Joe waits. My wife has been waiting 8 months to
see
a specialist about an ear problem. We have friends in the US who say
she
would be in under a week. I would pay for that service here if the
communists in power would let me. But alas like the only other 2
jurisdiction in the world, North Korea and Cuba, we are not allowed
private health care.








Attached Images
 
  #133  
Old April 12th 05, 03:25 PM
Arthur Entlich
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

This article is pure unadulterated BS. It is the line from the Fraser
Institute (financed by private insurance companies, among others) that
they have been hawking (a word selected for more than one reason) for years.

Ask "average" people from England if their health system has improved
now that private doctors and clinics have come about.

I am not opposed to nominal user fees, because indeed people have become
abusive here in Canada with their use of the medical system. I see
people in hospital emergency wards who have no right to be there. They
should be at a clinic. Every patient that enters the hospital emergency
system costs upwards of $500 to process, and more often than not, gets
worse care for it than they would visiting a local medical clinic. So,
yes, education is a requirement.

And why does Canada's medical care cost more than other countries. It's
simple. We are right next to the US, and they suck every nurse,
practitioner and doctor they can coerce into moving to their services,
so we have to pay more to keep them here.

That old "we already have two tired medicine because the politicians and
the rich can cheat" argument is also an old saw. It just so happens I
live in Dr. Keith Martin's riding, and I have had numerous discussions
with him. He is the MP who used to be a Reform party member and is now
a "Liberal" and he has been pushing two tier medicine for years. I
won't argue that some people don't successfully abuse the system, and
get to queue jump, but that no more validates making it a national
system than saying because gun control doesn't eliminate every gun
related crime, we should issue everyone a gun (come to think of it, you
might like that, considering your affinity for Ralph Klien, the "Western
Standard" and the Fraser Institute (can we say "red-neck" boys and girls?)).

Funny how you are so hip on getting those waiting lines reduced, you are
in favor of paying for your medical treatment, you admit your wife is
suffering, and yet you won't go to the US, who will gladly take your
money for the services and get the issue taken care of (and boy will you
pay for it).

Certainly, waiting lists have to be improved upon, but with shortages of
doctors and nurses and hospital rooms being closed down, that can't happen.

I have lived both sides of this game, and I know which works and why.
In fact, I have lived in several countries with assorted medical
systems, and I can say categorically that Canada HAD the best one I ever
experienced when I arrived here in the early 1980s.

There is a reason Tommy Douglas, the father of Canadian medicare, was
voted "Greatest Canadian" a few months back. Canadians recognize the
value of a nationalized medical system, now we just have to learn how to
properly use, fund and administer it.

As as to your taxes... if your taxes are going up significantly, then
so has your income, the value of your home, and so on, because taxes
have been dropping in Canada otherwise (that's, in fact, one reason the
medical system has been suffering).

We pay higher taxes here for the lifestyle we have. Our range of wealth
here is compressed and we are better for it. More people fit in the
middle class as a result, unlike in the US where "free enterprise"
allows for despairingly unfair distribution of wealth. We also have
1/10th the population but the same landmass to take care of, so one
would expect costs to be higher here. We also have a lot less violent
crime, a lot cleaner water and air, a lot lower infant mortality rate,
and a longer lifespan, and when you actually look into the cost of
private health care, private care of the elderly, and so on, we get off
cheap compared to the US.

Oh, and by the way, you might want to check out the tax percentages in
those countries the Fraser Institute mentioned. Take a look at the
rates for Sweden, France, Australia and Japan, and see where we fit
relative to the services we receive for that tax money. I bet you we
have the lowest cost of the bunch (and if we can get the government to
stop stealing our money, we'd be even better off);-). Funny how the
Fraser Institute forgets to mention that.

I just did some research, and although it is difficult to get direct
equivalencies on taxes here's what I found:

Japan: 10-37% income tax (8.5% of income goes directly to health and
dental care)
France: 10-48% income tax, 19.6% VAT/GST
Australia: 17-47% income tax 10% VAT/GST
Sweden: 68-92% taxes (total, came from another chart, and by the way the
92% was for an income of only $64K US)

Canada: 16-29% income tax 7% VAT/GST




Art


gary wrote:

There are people out there who think the present model of health care can
survive if we just keep throwing money at it. Where does this money come
from? My taxes have only been going up and up and are taking a greater
percentage of my income every year. Those Americans with good health care
can afford the premiums and enjoy much lower tax rates. If we had the lower
tax rates here we could also afford to buy excellent health care coverage.
Lets not always compare two tiered health care to the US. There are much
better models around the world which we will have to one day (soon)
seriously look into. Ralph Klein is the only Premier thinking ahead.
Health care cost are spiraling upward exponentionally. The population is
aging - increasing the use on the system, and we do not have the population
growth needed to sustain this system. Waiting lines only get longer and
longer - even though in Alberta we are pumping more and more money into the
system every year. As a side note, I heard a fellow say on a talk show the
other day that Sweden has NO waiting list. You need the service, you are
in. I am enclosing an excellent article from the Western Standard to help
us all think "outside the box".

Two-Tier health works all around the world

Monday, 11 October 2004
Candis McLean


When it comes to health care, Canadians seem convinced there are only two
options: the Canadian way, with our universal health system and no access to
privately funded medical procedures; or the American way, with no guaranteed
care and many citizens left uninsured. Yet in reality there are as many
different options as there are countries in the developed world, and of all
the models out there, Canada is getting the least bang for its health care
buck, according to health analyses conducted by the Vancouver-based Fraser
Institute.

Of 30 developed countries in the world, all but two--the U.S. and
Mexico--have programs that ensure access to care regardless of ability to
pay, Nadeem Esmail, a health policy analyst for the free market think tank,
told the audience at a Calgary luncheon in June. Of the 28 remaining
countries with universal health care access, every single one of them also
allows access to private care for those citizens who choose it. "If you look
at the four health care systems with the best measurable health
outcomes--Sweden, France, Australia and Japan--all of them allow patients to
contract for private care," Esmail says. "If you look at the seven countries
that have no waiting lists, the same is true." Even the United Kingdom, the
system upon which Canada's was based, permits a parallel private health care
system that offers the same services as those provided by the public sector,
and allows its residents to buy from private insurers and health providers.
Of developed countries, "only Canada disallows the delivery of privately
funded services," says Esmail. Yet while Canada has the highest age-adjusted
spending on health (10.8 per cent of GDP, compared to 7.2 per cent in the
U.K.), Canada does not rank first in access to care, supply technologies or
number of physicians.

According to Esmail, better health outcomes for money spent enjoyed by other
governments worldwide often come when health policies permit cost-sharing
between patient and government. The majority of developed countries require
patients to pay "nominal or not-so-nominal fees" to access physicians, says
Esmail. That leads to less demand, as people are less likely to abuse a
system that is not entirely free, with no detrimental effect on health.
Esmail holds up Australia as an example Canada might want to emulate. There,
roughly 15 per cent of total health care expenditures come from patients'
pockets. Physicians can bill any amount they wish, but the government
reimburses patients only 85 per cent of a standard fee it has established.

In addition, he says, there are major advantages gained by allowing the
contracting-out of services to the private sector. Even though bills may
still be covered largely by taxpayers, allowing private clinics to operate
leads to greater efficiencies through competition--without disenfranchising
the poor or financially ruining citizens facing catastrophic medical
expenses.

The key lesson for Canadians, he says, is that allowing privately funded
purchases of core health services, and allowing the private sector to
deliver that care, means a better system, because patients are getting the
care they want and are not simply stuck with accepting the care the
government will deliver to them--no matter how inadequate it may be.

While many Canadian politicians warn that allowing any private care will
result in so-called two-tier health care, implying that some Canadians will
have access to better care than others, Esmail says we're already there. "A
survey out of Ontario found that 80 per cent of physicians had been involved
in cases where patients had received preferential access to care for
non-medical reasons," he says. Wealthy Canadians--and even high-ranking
politicians--can fly to the U.S. or other countries for care, while the
well-connected pull strings to get themselves faster access to the
treatments they need. "This means that good Canadians waiting in queue for
what the government is going to give them are the ones to suffer," says
Esmail.

  #134  
Old April 12th 05, 03:51 PM
Wolf Kirchmeir
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

gary wrote:
There are people out there who think the present model of health care can
survive if we just keep throwing money at it. Where does this money come
from? My taxes have only been going up and up and are taking a greater
percentage of my income every year. Those Americans with good health care
can afford the premiums and enjoy much lower tax rates.


This is an odd comment. Add up the premiums and their lower tax rates,
and you'll find that they pay more for the same quality health care than
we do. Most of them do not get good care - the private insurers just
don't pay for it, because the employers want to keep premiums down. (I
have read that about $2,000 of a car's price in the USA accounts for the
health care benefits of the auto workers. In Canada, the cost is about
half that, both in employer's health tax and in benefits cost, which is
the main reason we build so many cars for the US market here.)

NB that in Canada we already have two-tier health ca most full time
workers have a health insurance plan that pays for items not covered by
medicare. These are expensive: in the 1990s, my employer paid almost
$5,000 per year per employee with a family. That was for dental and
eyecare, a drug plan, and such things as orthopedics and post-operative
physiotherapy, etc. These are all things that were and are covered by
medicare in almost all European countries. (The high cost of these
premiums is the reason that more and more employers are demanding that
the employee pay a share.)

You have only one wallet: you will have to pay for good health care one
way or another. Does it make a difference whether the health care dollar
goes to a government organised system, or a private insurer? The
experience in the USA suggests that privately paid health care costs
much more than our publicly paid system does. The two-tier systems your
quoted article mentions have serious flaws - basically, health care is
rationed by social class (ability to pay), not by urgency or need. I
don't see why someone making $100K a year should be able to get his wart
removed on demand and at his convenience, while someone making $30K a
year must wait hours for few stitches in a cut hand.

The fact is that no matter how you pay for it, there is only so much
health care available - that is, there are only so many doctors, nurses,
technicians, orderlies, etc. If there aren't enough _human_ resources,
we will have waiting lists, or else the "market" will ration health care
by pricing it out of reach of most people.

Our Canadian health care problems arise from a shortage of human
resources - people have to wait for hip surgery because there aren't
enough surgeons and OR nurses, is all. Why? Because a) our politicians
cut taxes in the 1980s and 90s, to satisfy complaints like yours; and b)
they cut spending on medical schools to pay for those tax cuts - at a
time when more medical schools should have been built. (It takes 12-15
years after high school to make a doctor: some of the kids graduating
from high school this year may be available to heal you sometime after
2017, if we are smart enough to raise taxes to help pay for their
medical education, so that they can afford to go to medical school.)

These idjits also cut hospital beds, ORs, and a host of other things,
all in the name of some stoopid "common sense" superstitions about some
alleged difference between dollars paid to a government and dollars paid
to a private business. (The waste and fraud that go on in private
business far exceed that in government - it's just not reported as such,
if it's reported at all. Just look at the "one time write downs" etc
that show up in annual reports. What are these? The price of a more or
less dumb decision. Who pays for it? The shareholders, via lower
dividends; and the consumer, via higher prices. And sometimes the
community at large pays too, via the destruction of a viable and useful
business.)

Sure our system has problems. But with all its problems, I prefer our
Canadian health care system. You may know some of those lucky Americans
who can afford good health care. I know, and know of, a lot who aren't
as lucky.
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Fast, high demand warehouse printer Pyrox Printers 6 June 28th 04 03:03 PM
can someone look at this? steve General 3 March 2nd 04 12:11 AM
Club 3D radeon 9600, Pro or Value? Digo Ati Videocards 2 February 17th 04 11:06 AM
Installing Ati Radeon 9700 drivers to Mandrake Linux 9.2 Meinz General Hardware 2 January 15th 04 07:09 PM
"System temperature too high" warning Dave Ulrick Homebuilt PC's 0 September 3rd 03 03:03 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:55 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 HardwareBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.