Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2011 May 23

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.

May 23

Composting

I've recently begun recycling my vegetable and fruit peelings by placing them in my yard waste bin (the one that is supposed to take grass and leaves from the yard), instead of using a compost pile. Is this OK? Do I need to start a compost pile instead? Hemoroid Agastordoff (talk) 00:47, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

You're putting fruit and veggie peals in yard waste bins that are collected by the city?

That is probably not ok. Most cities have pretty strict rules about what counts as yard waste and what doesn't.

You'll need to check local rules to be sure on this. Your city probably has a web page, and if not, a phone call to the dump or to city hall would answer your question. APL (talk) 03:38, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

See the article Compost. Composting works best with free access of the organic matter to air, worms and fungi. This is not the case inside a closed bin. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 07:47, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

I've never had much luck with closed containers for composting. At least, not for producing quality stuff to use in the garden. Open air is best. This is what I've done, and it works great: Place a small chain-link dog kennel in the yard away from the house. They come in all different sizes, and basically help keep the larger critters out of the food scraps. In the kitchen sink, I keep a plastic straining basket in which I place food scraps (vegetable peels, coffee grounds, etc) from throughout the day. At the end of the day, I rinse the scraps in the basket, and then empty it into the center of the kennel. I also keep a bucket of soil next to the kennel with a small spade. One scoop of soil on top of one basket of scraps, turn over the pile over with a shovel once or twice a season, and add a container of earthworms from the local bait shop in the spring and fall. At the end of the season you'll have a large pile of rich black soil. Caution: The kennel will only discourage dogs and other scavengers from getting to the food scraps, and spreading the around the yard. You will get mice, raccoons, cats and other scavengers digging around in the compost on occasion, but they will generally stay inside the kennel and not create a mess.)Quinn ^{❀ BEAUTIFUL DAY} 15:48, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Eep...I think I just gave advice on making good compost rather than answering if it is OK to put food scraps in with your yard clippings. Where I live, at least, doing so is a no-no. we can only put grass and shrub clipping in the containers that the municipality picks us. A couple times a year, leaves are OK too. But food scraps have to either go in the compost pile, the garbage disposal, or in with the regular un-sorted garbage. Call you're local Waste Control office (or the equivalent in your area) and inquire. Quinn ^{❀ BEAUTIFUL DAY} 15:57, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

questio about up/down loading pictures

I was born and raised in Pgh. Pa. While in my hometown during Thanksgiving 2007 I discovered that August Wilson lived on Bedford Ave. around the corner from my family home and my sister still lived there today. I visited Mr.Wilsons former home and took photos of a plaque which has been placed in front of the house. I am very proud of Pittsburghers who succeed and feel that a pic of the plaque should be placed on his Wikipedia Bio but I dont know how to get the pics from my pc to his page (Im not that pc literate).

Thanks, Carmen Wilson

There is a link on the left-hand side of the Wikipedia page called "Upload file". Clicking it will send you to Wikipedia:Upload. Follow the instructions there. JIP | Talk 03:52, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Let us know when that is done, and we can also help place the pic in the article. StuRat (talk) 05:36, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

You will also find helpful people here. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 07:41, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Public Domain Bagpipe Music?

Is there anywhere I can find public domain or CC-BY bagpipe music? --CGPGrey (talk) 07:57, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

SoundCloud has some bagpipe tunes that are under a creative commons license, e.g. Amberplush (from Seven Pipers Society) and of course the classic Scotland the Brave. Not sure of too many other websites that offer CC music, though. Good luck! ^Avic_ennasis @ 10:14, 19 Iyar 5771 / 23 May 2011 (UTC)

All music and files found on Wikimedia Commons are either public domain or Creative Commons. =) AerobicFox (talk) 01:51, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

drop down pop up

Hello can you please help me, with my email account on the page where i log in, in the bit where i say <redact email address> once I accidentally typed the email address and the password because I forgot to press enter or tab to go onto the password box so if my password was Dav1dDuch0vny which it isnt by thw way so dont even try but now when i go to type in my email it drops down the options "(e-mail address redacted)" and "(e-mail address redacted)Dav1dDuch0vny" when it tries to complete the sentence, which obviously isnt a good thing because my email address and my password are both there togther and hackers could get them. So can you please tell me how to sort this out. Thank you! Sally james langley (talk) 15:15, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

If I understand correctly, I don't think you have anything to worry about unless you are using a public computer, or if you have friends/family/roommates who also use the same computer. The mistaken e-mail/password information is probably only saved on your computer. Clearing your browsing history would probably take care of it if it bothers you. But I'd still advise changing your password if you have any doubts. Quinn ^{❀ BEAUTIFUL DAY} 15:26, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

I concur, and offer the additional: generally, if you see something in a dropdown that you don't want, just hover over it and press the 'delete' key. — Lomn 15:54, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Note that if you are saving the password in your browser in addition to the username this is not really much better. Although the password may not normally be displayed, this isn't going to stop any but the most casual of people interested in stealing your password (unless they are encrypted and additional password is required to access your saved passwords in which case at least they can't be accessed when this password has not been entered or saved in memory). Really the only additional risk is someone without any specific malicious intent may happen to see your password. Some people would suggest it's generally worse since it gives a false sense of security. In addition if you don't really trust people with access to the computer or have poor security practices allowing a 'hacker' to get access, they could easily install a keylogger or similar and do a lot of other nasty things, accidentally having saved your password in the username field is not a big concern. Nil Einne (talk) 17:22, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

I have taken the liberty of removing your e-mail addresses above. Publicly posting e-mail addresses anywhere on the Internet guarantees increased spam. Comet Tuttle (talk) 19:41, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

I've done the same to the remaining one. Exxolon (talk) 21:29, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

How much would a broken leg cost you in the USA as opposed to the UK?

Hypothetical scenario - you accidentally come off your bicycle while riding on the public highway, land awkwardly and break your leg. A passerby calls 911/999 and you're carted off in a ambulance to hospital. You're evaluated, your leg checked by a doctor to make sure there are no serious complications, it's set and a plaster cast (or equivalent) applied. You spend one night in hospital for observation and are discharged the next day with a prescription for painkillers and a pair of crutches. Six weeks later you come back to the hospital and have your cast removed and you make a full recovery.

Assuming you DON'T have medical insurance of any type, how much would this cost you in the USA? In the UK the only cost you might have to pay is the prescription charge of £7.50 ($10 approx) depending on your circumstances, it's often waived. There'd be no charge for the ambulance, the doctor, the bone setting, the cast, the overnight stay, the crutches would be loaned to you (though you could be charged if you failed to return them) or the cast removal. Is there any way to find out the average cost to an uninsured american citizen for this kind of scenario? Exxolon (talk) 19:38, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

This 2005 Word doc from the "Minnesota Council of Health Plans" says it's about US$2,500 for an emergency room visit, X-rays, and a simple cast for a broken arm, which is probably close. Comet Tuttle (talk) 19:43, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

This GAO page adds unhelpfully that a survey of ground ambulance services in 2004 showed a variety of costs from US$99 to US$1,218 per transport. Comet Tuttle (talk) 19:47, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

The reference desk will not answer questions that require or request medical opinions, per the guidelines at the top of this page and Wikipedia:Reference desk/Guidelines/Medical advice 84.242.216.248 (talk) 19:44, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

I un-boxed this question because it is clearly, at most, a medical information question, not a medical advice question. Comet Tuttle (talk) 19:47, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Just slightly ahead of me. WP:TROUT to the person who archived it. --Trovatore (talk) 19:48, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

I think it would probably be very difficult to find that out. Personally I like the idea of a more market-based approach to medicine. If medical consumers had an incentive to price-shop, it would create pressure on pricing that currently doesn't exist.

But as things stand, you mostly can't find out what the prices are. You just have to wait for the bill. Then you call up and complain, and negotiate. They may give you a break because you don't have insurance, at least if you pay timely. Or you might be able to argue that something was coded wrong, if you have access to that sort of information. --Trovatore (talk) 19:48, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

That's certainly a nice theory, but in practice health care in the US is far more expensive than in the UK. In part, that's due to market distortions caused by the NHS being a monopsony (we would be in trouble if the US wasn't effectively subsidising the development of the drugs we use!), but it's largely due to the massive inefficiencies on the US system. We love to complain about it, but the NHS works really well. --Tango (talk) 20:42, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

My argument is not that things work well in the States. It's that the reason for many of the problems is not so much the market as it is the absence of the transparency we demand in the rest of the market. --Trovatore (talk) 21:04, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

You could also factor in the paid period of Self-certified Sickness and Statutory sick pay if you are off work for 1 day to 28 weeks. Only three areas of the US seem to have paid sick leave. Nanonic (talk) 20:52, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

By those figures, a worst cast scenario you could end up with a charge approaching $5000 for a simple accident. I shudder to think what a serious medical emergency would end up costing. I carry $5 MILLION dollars worth of medical cover when I visit the USA and I'm still worried it might not be enough... Exxolon (talk) 19:59, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

LOL @ "worst cast scenario".  :) -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 20:05, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

ROFL - sometimes I amaze even myself with my ability to mistype! Exxolon (talk) 20:08, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

This is a little beside the point, but without knowing anything about your insurance policy, I bet it is different from what you think it is. US$5 million sounds to me more like some sort of liability insurance policy than a medical costs policy. Over here up until ... well, I believe, up until 2014 when the new health care law will finally make them illegal, every group health insurance policy I saw (the type that employees sign up for with their employer's plan) had a "maximum lifetime benefit" amount, and usually it was only US$1 million or US$2 million. Comet Tuttle (talk) 20:22, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

I was mistaken - it's actually TEN million dollars cover as part of my travel insurance. Exact wording is "Medical Expenses. Up to £10,000,000. Provides cover for costs arising in the event of illness, injury or death during the trip and where necessary the provision of emergency medical assistance." Exxolon (talk) 20:54, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Apples and oranges. You're comparing the cost to a citizen in the UK versus a tourist in the US. What would the same broken leg cost me if I break my leg while the UK as a tourist? (BTW 10 million pounds is considerably more than ten million dollars.) Roger (talk) 21:05, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand your point - if you check my original post I'm clearly asking the difference between a UK citizen having the accident and their out of pocket costs vs a USA citizen in the same scenario. Exxolon (talk) 21:11, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

But to answer your question, probably less - I quote "Treatment which is always free of charge - Some hospital treatment is free of charge for everyone who needs it, regardless of how long they have been or intend to stay in the UK. This is:- treatment for accidents and emergencies as an outpatient in a hospital’s accident and emergency department. Emergency treatment in a walk-in centre is also free of charge (England and Wales only). However, if you are referred to an outpatient clinic or admitted to hospital from an accident and emergency department, you will be charged" - so the only likely charge would be for the overnight hospital stay and the painkiller prescription. Exxolon (talk) 21:16, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

I might just also note that if you have to have any anesthesia, the price skyrockets even more in the US. And in my experience, they even charge you for the time you spend there while you are waiting for the anesthesia to wear off. My wife had a very mild surgery and the cost for just sitting in a post-surgery room (full of other people) was many thousands of dollars, even though all we did was sit there. Fortunately we had jobs and thus had insurance. It's a miserable, cruel, ridiculous, wasteful system. --Mr.98 (talk) 21:40, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Is healthcare really so ridiculously expensive in the USA? I had an accident in August 2010 that caused me to spend two weeks at hospital and undergo two surgeries. It cost me about 350 € in total. The surgeries and medicines administrated in hospital did not cost anything extra. According to what I have understood from the comments here, if I had done the same in the USA, I would have had to pay almost $10,000. 350 € wouldn't probably have even covered the anaesthesia for the surgery. Is this because the USA is the Land of the Free, free from any communism or other oppression? JIP | Talk 18:02, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Erm, the refdesk could discuss the pros and cons forever of the British, French, US systems, but it shouldn't. Remember that Americans (in general) prefer to give less and get less back, they see "tax and spend" as a bad thing. Of course the treatment costs more than 350 Euros, it's just you've paid for it already. I would be interested to know how much typical medical insurance is in the US, or perhaps what the total spend on insurance is, some measure like that. It would be interesting to see if the NHS (or equivalent systems) deliver the same care cheaper or more expensively, regardless of how they get paid. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 18:11, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I know that the actual total costs of the treatment was more than 350 €, and most of it came from the taxes that I and other Finns paid. But I still wonder how USAns view paying tax in order to receive cheap healthcare as an evil thing that leads to communism and other nightmarish situations. Isn't it the way it works in pretty much the entire world outside the USA? Not exactly everywhere of course, but in most countries? Or are there many other countries that use the same model as the USA where people earn much, pay little tax, but in turn, pay extraordinarily astonishingly high amounts for basic services which Europeans take for granted? Is this related to what I once heard that if I lived in the USA, a starting salary as a computer programmer fresh out from University would be in the order of $200 per hour? JIP | Talk 18:22, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure the insurance is that expensive, just the upfront charges would be. I'm sure, if we looked at it, that most countries pay on demand. The NHS costs £120 billion (according to "Where does my money go?"), which is about £2000 per person, something like that. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 18:33, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

$200 an hour sounds awful high, although salaries for programmers are certainly pretty good here. Also, if you live in the U.S. and don't spend much time in hospitals/have good insurance it's very easy to completely forget about the price of medical care. Qrsdogg (talk) 23:00, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

The average U.S. health insurance premium in 2009 was $13,375 a year, of which $3,354 is paid for by the employees themselves ([1]). In 2006, American households paid an average of $3,744 for health expenses not covered by insurance ([2]). This is on top of about $1.1 trillion in health spending by all levels of government in 2009 ([3]). So the average taxpayer is also responsible for about $9,300 of government health spending. This would obviously differ among households. A Medicaid recipient would contribute a lot less to the nation's healthcare spending than a rich person in the top tax bracket. As for why American put up with this system, see my answer to the next question. The average computer programmer in the U.S. made $69,620 in 2008, or about $35 an hour ([4]). -- Mwalcoff (talk) 23:11, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

"you accidentally come off your bicycle while riding on the public highway, land awkwardly and break your leg."

Public highway? One lawsuit in America brought against the city/state for narrow biking lanes should cover all your costs.AerobicFox (talk) 01:56, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

If you are riding a bicycle on a public highway in America, you deserve what you get. Ride somewhere safer. Googlemeister (talk) 14:15, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm surpriosed that Baseball Bugs has not deleted this question on the grounds of being anti-American. 2.101.10.94 (talk) 10:57, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Do USA medical insurance companies employ people specifically to deny coverage to claimants?

I've read anecdotal stories that that USA medical insurance companies actually employ people to go through your medical records, application forms and any other paperwork they have when you make a claim on your medical insurance trying to find any loophole that allows them to deny coverage, often on the most specious or technical of errors - examples have been things like someone failing to mention they suffered from acne as a teenager and being denied for not declaring a "pre-existing" condition, not entering their middle name on a form leading to denial on the grounds "failed to fully complete declaration" and other other horror stories. I've also heard that these people are paid bonuses based on the number of people denied coverage and the savings the company made - finding a way of denying a cancer patient treatment could potentially save the insurance company millions of dollars.

Is this actually true? Do these companies employ these people? If so, how do they sleep at night? Exxolon (talk) 21:08, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

In the documentary Sicko, a former insurance employee is interviewed whose entire job, in his telling of it, was specialized to finding ways to deny coverage to sick people. Check it out. How does he sleep at night? It's called money. It seems to help a lot of people sleep at night. If it doesn't, then they find someone else who it does. There are always enough scoundrels in the world for any awful jobs. --Mr.98 (talk) 21:33, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Does the UK medical system honor every claim, regardless of its cost and the age of the patient? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:45, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Apples and oranges from what we're talking about here, Bugs. If you haven't seen Sicko, check it out. It's very, very disturbing. It's about what the OP describes: people whose job it is to search for any technicality that allows a health care provider to drop a patient if the patient gets expensive. I don't know how widespread the practice is, but it's pretty awful. It's not at all about evaluating claims or even dropping illegitimate claims. It's about gaming the system so that the people who actually have healthcare actually don't get to use it. One of Sicko's great points is that it emphasizes that the problem is really well beyond people who have no healthcare in the United States — it's about the fact that even people who have healthcare are often left out in the cold. --Mr.98 (talk) 00:59, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Just a tiny quibble about terminology here: a health care provider is usually considered to be the person (nurse, doctor, dentist, etc.) or institution (hospital, clinic, etc.) that actually provides the care... what the OP is referring to are the "third party payers," which are organizations other than the patient (first party) or health care provider (second party) involved in the financing of personal health services.. A health care provider may choose not to treat a particular patient if they don't have proper insurance (which is another hairy topic), but the OP is specifically referring to the practice of health insurance providers hiring specialists whose sole job is to reduce costs by denying coverage. Right then, carry on. --- Medical geneticist (talk) 01:28, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

True enough, my bad. --Mr.98 (talk) 02:21, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Pretty much all UK medical treatment is free at the point of use. Treatment is only denied under very specific circumstances - for example:-

• The consensus of medical opinion is that further treatment is unlikely to be effective in prolonging life and the patient has no realistic chance of recovery and the patient or relatives are in agreement - "switching the machines off".
• Occasionally patients with advanced cancers and other similar scenarios might be denied funding for very expensive experimental drugs on cost effectiveness grounds - see National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence - however this is rare.

The NHS is a not perfect of course, but no-one is denied treatment on the basis they lack insurance coverage. Exxolon (talk) 23:02, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

The concept is called "rescission". There's some information at that article. --JGGardiner (talk) 23:09, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Ugh...that's nasty. "No we won't pay your claim, but here have your premiums back - of course they won't come close to paying your medical bill, ha ha ha." - as much as I enjoy visiting the USA I will never consider living there as long as the country doesn't have a decent publically funded healthcare system in place - it's more than my life's worth. Exxolon (talk) 23:21, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't think the U.S. is going to adopt a system that would pay for the hospital stays of foreigners. If you break your leg in Canada, you have to pay for it out of your own insurance of your own pocket; their system only pays for Canadians. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 23:39, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm not expecting them to do that - I'm just finding it hard to reconcile a health system that operates on a profit motive rather than a patient care motive. Why doesn't the USA just bite the bullet and get a taxpayer funded national healthcare system? Exxolon (talk) 00:04, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

That is a very complex question. The simple answer is there isn't support in Congress for such a plan. Why is that? Remember that 85% of Americans do have health insurance, and many of them arguably have better healthcare than do most people in Canada or the UK (no long waits for care, uncrowded hospitals, etc.). Also, even relatively modest reforms like Obama's generate intense opposing publicity from people who are on the other side (it's a job-killing socialist plan that will lead to death panels, etc.). I'm not saying they're right, only that it's not that easy. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 00:27, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

'Many of them arguably have better healthcare than do most people in Canada' -- hahahaha. No way buddy. Canada spends far less per capita on healthcare than the USA, with significantly better outcomes. Hospitals are rarely overcrowded; it is a rarity such that when it happens it is a headline-newsworthy event. Long waits for care only exist for non-emergent situations; optional or elective procedures where quality of life and overall health are not at issue. Anecdata, the last few times I have been in the hospital (2x in emergency, once for migraine masquerading as a stroke, once for H1N1; 1x inpatient care for appendicitis) I have been treated quickly and efficiently. (Well, not so much quickly in the case of the appendicitis, but that was a hospital-specific problem, not a funding issue). While horror stories of long wait times do exist in Canada, they are few and far between, particularly when one compares apples to apples: how people without private insurance are treated in the States. In a word: atrociously. Seriously, anyone arguing that the USA system is in any way better than the Canadian--except in terms of gee fancy whizbang gadgetry--has been listening to far too many Republican talking points. → ROUX ₪ 00:42, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

I didn't say the U.S. had a better healthcare system than Canada does. And there is no question that any Canadian is better off healthcare-wise than an American without insurance. I said most Americans may have better healthcare (not better health) than most Canadians. I've experienced both systems and while surely both have their unique problems, the patient/customer experience in the U.S. is better than that in Canada. Someone I know waited three years to get his knees fixed in Canada, and that was not atypical. In the U.S., you need your knees fixed, you get your knees fixed without much if any waiting. Same thing for an MRI. I've been in communities in Canada where there as many people waiting for a family doctor as there are uninsured people in a similarly sized American community. Hospitals in Canada often have to declare "code gridlock," meaning they're full and can't take any more patients. In B.C. recently, a hospital had to treat people in its Tim Hortons because it was so packed. That would never happen in a regular U.S. hospital. (Some hospitals in inner-city areas, maybe, but again, we're talking about the average American, not poor Americans.) Some Canadian hospitals remind me of underfunded U.S. public schools. In comparison, U.S. hospitals look like hotels; the Mayo Clinic even has a piano in its atrium. They did a survey of Americans living in Canada, and most said they preferred the American system. Now there might be problems with the U.S. way of doing things. I'm not arguing that the U.S. has a better overall system. The U.S. may have an oversupply of expensive healthcare that drives up costs and leads to people being uninsured. I'm just saying that if you're Joe Schmoe average middle-class American and are used to a surfeit of doctors, short waits for elective care, fancy hospitals and healthcare providers who have to treat you really nice because they know you can find another doctor on a dime, you're not going to go wild for a system like Canada's -- unless you're concerned about what the U.S. system is costing you in dollars and the chance you might wind up without insurance sometime. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 01:11, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

I think an interesting issue is 1) Do all 85% of people with health insurance really have it that good when it comes to things like access to elective care (for the same conditions) etc? 2) How many Americans think they have better health care but are going to find themselves not so lucky when they really have to test it (getting back to the original premise and comments like Mr. 98) Nil Einne (talk) 01:48, 25 May 2011 (UTC) Edit: An additional consideration is whether you can get equivalent care by paying the same or less in countries with public healthcare systems with waiting lists etc as most of these countries do have private healthcare and insurance. In a number of developed countries (most of the anglophile ones anyway AFAIK) these aren't used much by what could be called the middle class, people feel they should be treated publicly because they're paying for it via their taxes or whatever and usually the private healthcare won't be funded by the government so what you're paying is seen as going to waste but I've never seen any analysis as to how it works out when you take these options in to account. About the Americans in Canada thing, it would be interested how those living in the US from developed countries with public healthcare feel the American system is. My impression is many of them prefer their health care systems too. Nil Einne (talk) 18:33, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Public healthcare doesn't usually pay for (non-emergency) treatment of visitors, but a foreign permanent resident would usually be covered (they certainly are in the UK). --Tango (talk) 00:37, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Norwegian Wikipedia has an article on that country's Law on delay interest which stipulates that a debitor must pay over 7% interest (now 9%) on debts not paid on time. This discourages Norwegian insurance companies from delaying settlements. Same or similar legislation exists in the rest of Scandinavia and the European Union. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 11:30, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Are you sure? What's the equivalent legislation in England? (Also, "debtor" not "debitor" I think - the b is silent.) --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 02:18, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

debitor. England is part of the UK which is part of the European Union. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 09:33, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

OR warning-- My brother-in-law works for an HMO, and is rewarded (in part) for claims denied or reduced. By the way, this is common in other kinds of insurance, too. DOR (HK) (talk) 04:11, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

is it legal to kill your own dog and what is the limit of a butcher

Is it legal to kill your own dog? Not that I can imagine anyone would do this but is it? And also when a butcher gets meat in, does he get the whole cow (or other animal) carcass and cut it up into different bits? And if you brought him a dead animal would he cut it up for you? If, for example, I wanted to eat a seal heart or similar and I found a dead seal, could I get my butcher to cut it up for me or would he refuse? And what would his thoughts be on a dog? Sally james langley (talk) 21:16, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Most jurisidictions have strict laws and regulations regarding animal welfare, cruelty and humane slaughter practices. Killing your own dog without an extremely good reason (actively attacking a human, "mercy killing" in a remote location where vetinary assistance is not available or similar scenario) would certainly be investigated and probably prosecuted in the UK. I believe a "proper" butcher would certainly buy in animal carcasses and prep them for sale on site. He wouldn't cut up your carcasse as he would have no way of ascertaining it's provenance without the correct paperwork (CJD and Mad Cow disease mean livestock movement/slaughter is highly regulated). Any reputable butcher confronted by someone wanting them to butcher a dead dog would call the police/RSPCA, see above. Exxolon (talk) 21:21, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

In the US, most meat is now sold vacuum packed from large companies - the local butcher only cuts it to size for the customer. Wal-Mart does not even do that - everything is pre-wrapped. You can buy a side of beef online - those folks will cut it all up and wrap it for you as well. Collect (talk) 21:26, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Are you a new and naïve editor SJL?

Keep to the clear cut simple things to start with, so as not to come across as talking utter nonsense --Aspro (talk) 21:29, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Judging by Special:Contributions/Sally james langley, this "editor" is a habitual vandal and troll and IMHO overdue for an indefinite block. Roger (talk) 21:40, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

(after ec)To answer part of your question, from what I've seen (in the UK), butchers have their cows delivered in halves, split from neck down to ass (head off) and their pigs delivered whole (head on), but eviscerated. Birds come whole (head off), as you might expect. Not sure about the sheep - don't recall ever seeing them being delivered. --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 21:32, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Nice to assume good faith and all that, but a quick look at this editor's history shows that he or she is a net waste of everyone's time and should be permablocked. --CliffC (talk) 22:40, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

In Canada, it is perfectly legal to sell or consume dog meat (as well as horse meat, which many Americans also find taboo). However, the typical agriculture inspection laws apply [5], meaning you probably can't just take a dead dog to the butcher - he'd want to know where it was killed. Buddy431 (talk) 22:44, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Not sure about other places, but in many parts of the US, there are specialty butchers to which you can take game animals (i.e. deer, etc) to have butchered for you. Not sure of the licensing, as have never done it myself, but you probably have to have your hunting license tag for the animal to prove you took it legally. Heiro 01:32, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

In New Zealand it's legal to kill (and eat) your own dog provided it's done humanely although it may get you in the news [6] [7] Nil Einne (talk) 04:25, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Even a troll's question can result in useful information being provided in response. The guide "Field dressing and butchering big game" says that when an animal is killed for food, it is highly desirable to promptly drain the blood, often by severing major arteries in the neck and hoisting it up by its hind feet. The "innards" are removed, while avoiding contaminating the carcass with intestine contents. The meat should be cooled and kept cool to avoid spoilage. In the US, laws and customs make a distinction between animals considered pets, those raised for food, and those considered vermin. Many US pet species are food animals in some other countries. Many food animals in the US are also kept as pets. Some US cities which have recently allowed urban keeping of chickens require that the chickens be taken to a butcher shop for slaughter, whereas in the country it is common to just kill them and process them in the farmyard. Nothing said here should be taken as legal advice, but "Eating animals" says it is legal in 44 US states to eat dog meat, but that Americans rarely eat dog. The book says the French love dogs, but sometimes eat horses; the Spanish love horses, but sometimes eat cows, and Indians love cows but sometimes eat dogs. Germany had specialist dog butchers as well as horse butchers before WW1, and many consumers preferred the taste or price of dog and horse meat to beef or pork. Edison (talk) 15:11, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Worked for a butcher once upon a time. Not a fun job BTW. Cows come in halves or quarters. Pigs usually come whole, head on. Chickens usually come whole, too, but plucked and headless. In Mississippi at least, people would bring in wild game they had killed and he would butcher it to their specification. I don't think we were breaking the law doing that, but I never asked. This included deer, rabbit, many kinds of fowl, and an occasional fish, but usually only ones that are tough to clean properly without good knives, such as buffalo fish or gar. He refused to do a turtle one time...not sure why. Anyway, I ran the front so didn't see much of the gory stuff, but it is unfortunate that the "local butcher" is a dying breed. The prepackaged meat in the grocery stores these days is very much unsatisfactory. Quinn ^{❀ BEAUTIFUL DAY} 20:04, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

In most parts of the United States, you can kill your dog at any time for any reason, so long as you do so in a humane manner. --Carnildo (talk) 00:24, 26 May 2011 (UTC)