Miscellaneous desk
< November 19	<< Oct \| November \| Dec >>	November 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.

November 20

Ski-Doo Rotax Engines

What is the Skidoo Rotax 800 H.O.? What is the Skidoo Rotax 800R Powertek? What is the Skidoo Rotx 800 H.O. DMP?

What is the differences between the three Skidoo Rotax engines provided above? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.11.82.215 (talk) 05:12, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

These are Austrian 2-stroke engines for snowmobiles. Here is the manufacturer's website. Wikipedia has historical information at Bombardier Recreational Products#Development of the small snowmobile. This site has Ski-Doo engine tuning information. If you can translate German then willkommen in unserer Welt unt wir haben ein kontaktadresse. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 01:28, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Meta meta meta question

What proportion of questions that people ask on the Wikipedia Reference Desk are answered correctly? And which of the separate Reference Desks on Wikipedia have the highest "success rate"? Harley Spleet (talk) 19:06, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There's likely no way to answer your question for two reasons. 1) I doubt that anyone has ever kept such statistics and more importantly 2) How do you judge a "correct answer". It may be possible to figure out (if someone was dedicated enough) which questions went entirely unanswered, but what makes an answer "correct"? --Jayron32 19:35, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Another meta reply: First determine how many questions asked can be answered correctly? How many have a single correct answer? Does it count as 'correct' to provide links that partially answer the question? For actual answerable questions I bet the science and math desks have a better record of correct replies than humanities and, especially, miscellaneous. And yes, correct, that is my opinion. Pfly (talk) 20:38, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In my own observational experience, the likelihood of getting an eventual correct, or at least "reasonable", answer is fairly high. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:40, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The proportion is less than 100% and will remain so. There will be a finite probability of receiving responses that are disinformative as long as the desks are open to the whole Internet population of anonymous unqualified users with no requirements to provide reliable references for what they say, to show any previous aptitude for encyclopedia contribution, or to correct errors in own posts when they become apparent. The desk with the best quality of answers is the Mathematics desk because of its limited and objective scope. It is more helpful to give questions an informative title that does not repeat the term "question". Cuddlyable3 (talk) 01:07, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed your link, Cuddlyable3. WP:RDM is the Miscellaneous desk; the Mathematics desk is at WP:RDMA. --Theurgist (talk) 04:41, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Theurgist for that help. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 13:03, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

One question farther down is whether angels exist or not. There is no possible "correct" answer to a question like that... beyond saying "there is no possible correct answer." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:33, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There will be a finite probability of receiving responses that are disinformative as long as the answers are provided by anybody more fallible than God. I've heard that even at regular library reference desks, people are sometimes directed to the wrong shelf. --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:52, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hence To err is human to forgive is divine - said Alexander Pope. Is it forgiveable blasphemy to claim one is always wrong or is that just a paradoxical flight from responsibility? Cuddlyable3 (talk) 13:01, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There was an academic study done on this very question a couple of years ago. In keeping with the results, I can't be bothered to find a link. --Sean 16:28, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not just one study, but 87 studies:[1] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:51, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What insurance covers braces/Invisaligns?

I hope to get it sometime before getting said braces.

Failing that, what is the cheapest place in America (or preferably Kansas) where I can get them? How much will they cost, and do they have a monthly payment plan for the entire duration I wear said braces/Invisaligns? Thanks. --70.179.174.101 (talk) 19:25, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You should ask your insurance provider. The answer will depend on some specific things that if you don't know we certainly can't either. Shadowjams (talk) 21:24, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The general answer is dental insurance (which is separate from medical insurance), but not all plans carry orthodontic options, and not all orthodontic options will probably cover Invisalign. Whether you are buying it on the open market, or subscribing to a group plan (through your employer, or your parents' employer if you are under whatever the cutoff age is in your state) will affect the cost and options. If you are getting your medical insurance through your employer, check with your human resources representative. As for the price of the orthodontics, you'd do better to call up the offices of orthodontists in your local area and ask them, than to ask on here. --Mr.98 (talk) 22:35, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

These days it often cheaper for a US citizen to forgo insurance premiums and fly aboard for their dental treatment. --Aspro (talk) 22:43, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I assume you meant "abroad". Is it actually possible for a U.S. citizen, for example, to get the benefits of the socialized medicine of a European country, for example? If so, in the long run wouldn't that tend to raised the cost, i.e. the taxes, of the citizens of that country? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:38, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're touch typing is obliviously butter than mine. Bee that as it may. The benefit these other countries with socialized medicine can enjoy by treating their US cousins, is that they get offered jaw-dropping-opportunities to put their money into Gold Plated US investments, in such like companies as Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac which spring to mind. Then there are all those banking investments - oh the list can go on-and-on--Aspro (talk) 00:12, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WHAAOI. --ColinFine (talk) 00:20, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not necessarily a good one though, that article is a mess with stuff like "Although some think it is a good idea to simply go to the country as a tourist and find a dentist there, rather than to find dentists on the Internet, you take a great risk just walking into a clinic having done no research" and "One other important consideration is location. If you go all the way to India or Singapore or Argentina for a dental procedure, and something goes wrong, it is a long way to go to have to return and get them to fix it.". BTW, I think the OP is well aware of dental tourism, at least when it comes to India, I guess for some reason they decided against the idea, perhaps concern over getting adjustments done locally. Nil Einne (talk) 10:13, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A bit more Googling; apparently the average cost of Invisalign, uninsured, is around $5000, but can be as low as $3500 and as high as $8000 depending on where you are.[2] As for insurance, there are many, many, many different dental insurance plans available to you, assuming you are looking for the open market and are not doing it through your employer. You will really need to do some research on them. The good news is that dental insurance is a lot cheaper than most other insurance — premiums are often around $15-30 a month, which is not so bad if you are using it. The bad news is that often insurance providers pay for only a portion of orthodontics, so it could still cost you several thousand dollars out of pocket. But the exact details will determine on the plan you have. I would start with any options available to you through your employer, and branch out from there. If you Google "dental insurance kansas" you'll find lots of sites with lists of potential providers. Approach is methodically, especially since you have one major goal in mind. --Mr.98 (talk) 00:21, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Does dental insurance commonly exclude pre-existing conditions? Like for example squint teeth needing orthodontic work? It doesn't seem a good business model to insure people who have bad teeth. --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:55, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, pre-existing conditions are usually not covered. It also seems to be a common exclusion on new dental insurance policies that unless you can produce dental records that show you have visited a dentist within the last 12 months (which would, presumably, identify any pre-existing conditions) then any treatment arising from your first check-up under the policy is not covered. Gandalf61 (talk) 10:41, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(EC with above) I had the same thoughts. Obviously if you're using your parents plan then this likely doesn't apply. Or if your dental insurance comes from university or work then I guess it's possible they've negotiated something like this under the assumption the risk balances out overall for the workplace. Similarly if your local jurisdiction has legal requirements which require dental insurers to insure people. But in cases where it's purely commercial, it does seem to me it would be difficult to find one where it's that easy to get more out of the insurance then you put in. Meaning where you can join, pay $15-$30 a month and within a month or two get them to put in say $1000 for your braces (which from some research seems a commonly quoted figure for those who offer coverage for braces) and when you don't need braces anymore, say in 2 years time, quit if you don't feel the coverage is worth it. It would seem likely anyone who wanted braces and had a bit of sense and time would be doing this. I guess they could hope enough people will stay to make this worthwhile or it's too complicated to try to exclude these cases, but it does seem surprising to me. While not relevant to the OP, this UK one excludes pre-existing conditions for the first 2 years [3]. Some refs suggest there is commonly a waiting period [4] [5] possibly 1-2 years in the US. There may still be an advantage for insurance. E.g. I've seen some sites which mention you can get specific coverage for braces, I presume these are in case something goes wrong or your case turns out to be unusually expensive, in other words, if everything goes fine you'll probably end up paying more (since as most insurance, you pool the risk) which may be worth considering. Nil Einne (talk) 10:48, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]