In article <3FCDF446.9C67820E@mindspring.com>, C. E. White wrote:

> my stomach. I don't know about Doctors, but I am pretty sure the hospitals know
> how to work the medicare system to extort as much money as possible from the
> government.

Some do, some don't.


 


Jerry McG wrote:

> "C. E. White" <cewhite3@mindspring.com> wrote in message
> news:3F7CE3E2.B772E342@mindspring.com...
> >
> >
> > Lloyd Parker wrote:
> >
> > > So are conservatives -- telling people what kind of sex to have, what
> genders
> > > can marry, what a woman can do with her body, etc.
> >
> > It is not just conservatives who oppose the redefinition of "marriage."
> > Any reasonable person should oppose this sort of reckless redefinition
> > of a long established legal / social / religious institution. If same
> > sex couples want to form a long term commitment to each other, I think
> > that is fine. If they feel they need a governmental sanction to this
> > commitment, then pass a law that creates a new class of civil union. But
> > trying to call this a "marriage" is an insult to millions of American
> > and serves no useful purpose.
> >
> > Ed
>
> Oh, sure it does, Ed, if recognized as "marriage" they then get huge tax
> and benefits advantages, all of which are denied singles.

Then pass a law that creates the same benefits for same sex unions, but don't
try to call it a marriage. It is not. Besides, I keep hearing that there is a
marriage penalty in the tax code.

Ed

 
In article <fftrsvsu8cekch5j9bu9frqkvibo33igbt@4ax.com>, Bill Funk wrote:
> On Wed, 03 Dec 2003 01:41:01 GMT, tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P)
> wrote:

>>In article <bqitam$of5$3@puck.cc.emory.edu>, Lloyd Parker wrote:
>>> Need dialysis? No hospital is required to do that for free, for example.

>>Government health care programs already cover dialysis. In fact the price
>>(LOW) the government pays is a if not the driving factor in care in this
>>area. The government payment scheme for 3-times-a-week dialysis is
>>a major obstacle to improving the quality of care, the quality of
>>people's lives, and their surviviability.
>>
>>I am really glad you made a point of dialysis parker, because it is one
>>treatment that is required to keep people with renal failure alive but one
>>where government price controls dominate what people get with regards
>>to care. It is a great example of the arrogant way government does things
>>that has a negative effect on people. Want better care than 3 times a
>>week? Government says you can't have it, they'll only pay for that. If
>>you want something better, you better pay for it yourself or hope it can
>>work within the government 3-times-a-week cost model. You've stuck your
>>foot in your mouth once again Parker.
>
> To be fair, Lloyd can get something right once in a while.
> The quoted line above ("Need dialysis? No hospital is required to do
> that for free, for example.") is right.
> In your response, you show that the government pays for it, in many
> cases. In such cases, the dialysis is not provided for free by the
> hospital.

While I only quoted one line from Dr. Parker for the sake of bandwidth
and readability, I am responding to his greater arguements. By using
this example, he has put the spot light on an area where the
government system hurts the quality of care. He has greatly weakened
his overall arguement.

BTW, Hospitals typically don't provide dialysis as an on going treatment,
maybe as an emergency treatement or for a patient that is there for
something else, but the dialysis is the business of dialysis clinics.


 
In article <goudnWexTPwLYFGiRTvUqA@texas.net>, Steve <no@spam.thanks> wrote:
>Lloyd Parker wrote:
>
>
>>>The problem is that the Clinton administration started treating routine
>>
>> maintenance on plants as
>>
>>>"new source" creation, which was contrary to the actual written law.
>>
>>
>> Wrong. They started treating major modifications as new sources, which was
>> exactly what the law allowed (and required). If during 10 years of routine
>> maintenance you replace each part, you've got a new source, yet under your
and
>> Bush's plan, it'd never trigger the latest pollution controls because you
>> replaced it one piece at a time, as part of each year's maintenance.
>>
>
>Thats an incorrect interpretation. If I have a 1973 Plymouth (which I
>do) and I replace many components in the course of its 450,000 mile
>lifespan (which I have) it is STILL a 1973 Plymouth. It may have some
>improvements (modern tires, high-tech brake pads, modern shocks,
>aftermarket fuel injection) but it still costs me more to operate daily
>than a 2003 Intrepid would, and is still subject to 1973 emissions
>standards not 2003 standards. But my maintenance and improvements mean
>that it is cleaner and costs less to run than if I had a time machine
>and brought an UN-improved 1973 Plymouth to 2003 instead.

But if you replace the carb, then the pistons, then the exhaust, you've got
enough of a new engine that you ought to not still have the exemption that old
engines get from emissions standards.

>
>By treating routine maintenance as a "new source", the plant owner faces
>a double-whammy of 1) the higher cost of operating what is STILL
>actually an old-design plant and 2) gummint penalties. And on top of
>that, the Sierra Club and other luddite cronies are standing there just
>WAITING to protest and shut the whole operation down completely if the
>owner were to apply for a brand new plant to replace the old one. That
>does NOTHING to encourage building of new plants, but instead
>DIScourages routine maintenance that would keep the old plant running as
>cleanly as possible.
>
>
 
In article <rdqdncPcUbqAYlGiRTvUqQ@texas.net>, Steve <no@spam.thanks> wrote:
>Greg wrote:
>
>> Lloyd Parker wrote:
>
>>>
>>>>"new source" creation, which was contrary to the actual written law.
>>>
>>>Wrong. They started treating major modifications as new sources, which was
>>>exactly what the law allowed (and required).
>>
>>
>> MAJOR modifications. Not minor improvements which would INCREASE
efficiency, such
>> as a new version of wear items such as turbine blades.
>>
>
>
>EXACTLY. Clinton policy = NO MODIFICATIONS!! Not even improvements to an
>old plant that would be better than doing nothing.

Because the Clean Air Act only exempts _maintenance_ not _modifications_.

>
>Some companies *did* go to far and try to slip an entirely new plant in
>an old shell and call it "maintenance" to avoid installing emissions
>gear (Alcoa Sandow plant, for example) and they got caught and called on
>the carpet for it... Oh but wait, that happened during the Bush
>administration, interestingly enough. Sorta like Enron's crimes all took
>place during the Clinton years, but Lloyd keeps telling us that they
>were Bush cronies because they were *caught* during the Bush years. :p
>
>
>
>
 
In article <cD8zb.400914$Tr4.1152927@attbi_s03>,
tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
>In article <bqit3e$of5$1@puck.cc.emory.edu>, Lloyd Parker wrote:
>> In article <Us5zb.282500$275.1000782@attbi_s53>,
>> tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
>>>In article <bqinb6$him$8@puck.cc.emory.edu>, Lloyd Parker wrote:
>>>
>>>> Yeah, it'd be terrible if everybody were covered and we spent less on
>> health
>>>> care, as Europe, Canada, and Japan do, wouldn't it? Terrible for
insurance
>>>> companies, drug companies, HMOs, etc, that is.
>>>
>>>How would we spend "less on health care" ? Instead of paying for health
>>>insurance we would pay *AT LEAST* that much in additional taxes.
>>>
>>>
>> Why is it, then, that every western European nation, plus Canada and Japan,
>> spend less per capita on health care than the US yet still cover everybody?
>
>Answer a question with a question. How does your state run health care
>system cost less than the current private one?
>
>
Because all the examples we have of state-run health care say it would.
Economy of scale, negotiation for lower prices, preventative care instead of
waiting until the person becomes sick -- all these and other factors.
 
In article <vsq63d41c6ose2@corp.supernews.com>,
"The Ancient One" <onlytheone@thetopknows.com> wrote:
>
>"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
>news:bqinb6$him$8@puck.cc.emory.edu...
>> In article <QA3zb.1107$Kf2.626@twister.socal.rr.com>,
>> "David J. Allen" <dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >"C. E. White" <cewhite3@mindspring.com> wrote in message
>> >news:3FCCB2E7.B0E53E0D@mindspring.com...
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> "David J. Allen" wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> > Reminds me of my experience in a country a few years ago that had
>"free"
>> >> > (i.e., rationed) medical care for all. The demand for care
>outstripped
>> >the
>> >> > supply and the only people who got decent medical care were the
>people
>> >with
>> >> > money, who could pay for a private doctor. Everyone else had to go
>wait
>> >in
>> >> > line at the clinic and hope for decent care.
>> >>
>> >> So now you live in a country where health care is ridiculously
>expensive.
>> >Most
>> >> of the money goes to insurance companies. Nurses in the emergency room
>> >spend
>> >> more time filling out paperwork than looking after patients. Doctors
>live
>> >in
>> >> fear of making an honest mistake because the sharks are circulating
>just
>> >out of
>> >> sight ready to pounce. If you are poor the health care is still
>"free."
>> >If you
>> >> are rich or have really good insurance, then the system is great.
>However
>> >if you
>> >> are somewhere in between, chances are your insurance company will try
>to
>> >screw
>> >> you, while the hospital tries to bleed your dry (to pay for the
>> >administrators,
>> >> paper pushers, and to cover the cost of the "free" health care for the
>> >poor).
>> >> The fact is, we do have National Health Care in the US. The sad part
>is,
>> >we have
>> >> just about the worst possible system you can imagine. Personally I see
>> >only two
>> >> ways out - 1) A true National Health Care system with restrictions on
>> >"private"
>> >> practices, 2) Outlaw all health insurance and shoot anyone who even
>> >suggests
>> >> that companies provide health insurance. Everyone pays their own bills.
>If
>> >you
>> >> can't afford the treatment, you can apply for welfare (which would be
>> >generously
>> >> granted based on need).
>> >>
>> >
>> >There's no shortage of things to criticize about health care in the US.
>> >But, with the right perspective, it can be judged a very good system. I
>> >remember getting my first job and insurance was completely paid for by
>the
>> >company and there were no co-pays and only a small deductible. The
>problem
>> >with that is that it's so inflationary; patients didn't care what the
>cost
>> >was. Over the last 15 years the cost burden is being "shared" more and
>more
>> >with the patients. The cost of care is not distributed evenly. Those
>who
>> >pay, pay a lot. The cost of developing drugs and procedures is very
>> >expensive. You're right about the cost of providing free care to the
>poor
>> >and paying for malpractice litigation. Managed care puts the brakes on
>> >demand making it frustrating for patients whose health is at stake.
>> >
>> >With managed care, when you do your homework as a "consumer" of medical
>care
>> >and understand how the HMO system works, you CAN get what you need. As
>> >consumers, we have to do our part and understand what you're paying for
>and
>> >what the contract says. Then work with it. Unfortunately, it's complex
>and
>> >not real easy since there's three parties... you, the provider and the
>> >insurer. But it is possible.
>> >
>> >I think a National Health Care system sounds very scary. If we want an
>> >abundant supply of medical care in this country you can't take the supply
>> >and demand components out of the system. The minute you do, there won't
>be
>> >enough care and it will be substandard. There will be a constant
>struggle
>> >to keep the system from bankrupting the national treasury. I think it
>will
>> >just become a giant sized version of an HMO run by the government with no
>> >competitors.
>>
>> Yeah, it'd be terrible if everybody were covered and we spent less on
>health
>> care, as Europe, Canada, and Japan do, wouldn't it? Terrible for
>insurance
>> companies, drug companies, HMOs, etc, that is.
>>
>
>Explain then Lloyd why bus loads of Canadians with life threating health
>problems are forced to come to the USA for treatment at their own expense.
>Sure they can get free care in Canada, IF they can wait 6 months to a year
>for treatment.



>
>
>> But why not a single-payer, like Canada then? You wouldn't have national
>> health care, just national health insurance.
>>
>> >
>> >> > This is the template one could overlay anything. Energy, Healthcare,
>> >Food,
>> >> > etc., etc. Those who support Kyoto are lefties and the farther left
>you
>> >go,
>> >> > the more strident the support for Kyoto. The "rich" are the ones one
>> >need
>> >> > to be reigned in so the "poor" will have a chance.
>> >>
>> >> Ed
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>
>
 
In article <vsq63d41c6ose2@corp.supernews.com>,
"The Ancient One" <onlytheone@thetopknows.com> wrote:
>
>"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
>news:bqinb6$him$8@puck.cc.emory.edu...
>> In article <QA3zb.1107$Kf2.626@twister.socal.rr.com>,
>> "David J. Allen" <dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >"C. E. White" <cewhite3@mindspring.com> wrote in message
>> >news:3FCCB2E7.B0E53E0D@mindspring.com...
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> "David J. Allen" wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> > Reminds me of my experience in a country a few years ago that had
>"free"
>> >> > (i.e., rationed) medical care for all. The demand for care
>outstripped
>> >the
>> >> > supply and the only people who got decent medical care were the
>people
>> >with
>> >> > money, who could pay for a private doctor. Everyone else had to go
>wait
>> >in
>> >> > line at the clinic and hope for decent care.
>> >>
>> >> So now you live in a country where health care is ridiculously
>expensive.
>> >Most
>> >> of the money goes to insurance companies. Nurses in the emergency room
>> >spend
>> >> more time filling out paperwork than looking after patients. Doctors
>live
>> >in
>> >> fear of making an honest mistake because the sharks are circulating
>just
>> >out of
>> >> sight ready to pounce. If you are poor the health care is still
>"free."
>> >If you
>> >> are rich or have really good insurance, then the system is great.
>However
>> >if you
>> >> are somewhere in between, chances are your insurance company will try
>to
>> >screw
>> >> you, while the hospital tries to bleed your dry (to pay for the
>> >administrators,
>> >> paper pushers, and to cover the cost of the "free" health care for the
>> >poor).
>> >> The fact is, we do have National Health Care in the US. The sad part
>is,
>> >we have
>> >> just about the worst possible system you can imagine. Personally I see
>> >only two
>> >> ways out - 1) A true National Health Care system with restrictions on
>> >"private"
>> >> practices, 2) Outlaw all health insurance and shoot anyone who even
>> >suggests
>> >> that companies provide health insurance. Everyone pays their own bills.
>If
>> >you
>> >> can't afford the treatment, you can apply for welfare (which would be
>> >generously
>> >> granted based on need).
>> >>
>> >
>> >There's no shortage of things to criticize about health care in the US.
>> >But, with the right perspective, it can be judged a very good system. I
>> >remember getting my first job and insurance was completely paid for by
>the
>> >company and there were no co-pays and only a small deductible. The
>problem
>> >with that is that it's so inflationary; patients didn't care what the
>cost
>> >was. Over the last 15 years the cost burden is being "shared" more and
>more
>> >with the patients. The cost of care is not distributed evenly. Those
>who
>> >pay, pay a lot. The cost of developing drugs and procedures is very
>> >expensive. You're right about the cost of providing free care to the
>poor
>> >and paying for malpractice litigation. Managed care puts the brakes on
>> >demand making it frustrating for patients whose health is at stake.
>> >
>> >With managed care, when you do your homework as a "consumer" of medical
>care
>> >and understand how the HMO system works, you CAN get what you need. As
>> >consumers, we have to do our part and understand what you're paying for
>and
>> >what the contract says. Then work with it. Unfortunately, it's complex
>and
>> >not real easy since there's three parties... you, the provider and the
>> >insurer. But it is possible.
>> >
>> >I think a National Health Care system sounds very scary. If we want an
>> >abundant supply of medical care in this country you can't take the supply
>> >and demand components out of the system. The minute you do, there won't
>be
>> >enough care and it will be substandard. There will be a constant
>struggle
>> >to keep the system from bankrupting the national treasury. I think it
>will
>> >just become a giant sized version of an HMO run by the government with no
>> >competitors.
>>
>> Yeah, it'd be terrible if everybody were covered and we spent less on
>health
>> care, as Europe, Canada, and Japan do, wouldn't it? Terrible for
>insurance
>> companies, drug companies, HMOs, etc, that is.
>>
>
>Explain then Lloyd why bus loads of Canadians with life threating health
>problems are forced to come to the USA for treatment at their own expense.
>Sure they can get free care in Canada, IF they can wait 6 months to a year
>for treatment.
>
>

Like asking why people travel to Mexico for Christmas trees. It simply does
not happen.

Read, for example,
http://www.worldpolicy.org/globalrights/econrights/canada-health.html

or

http://www-2.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs.cmu.edu/user/clamen/misc/politics/HealthCare/Co
nsumerReports-Sep92.html.gz#Does%20Canada%20Have%20The%20Answer?

>> But why not a single-payer, like Canada then? You wouldn't have national
>> health care, just national health insurance.
>>
>> >
>> >> > This is the template one could overlay anything. Energy, Healthcare,
>> >Food,
>> >> > etc., etc. Those who support Kyoto are lefties and the farther left
>you
>> >go,
>> >> > the more strident the support for Kyoto. The "rich" are the ones one
>> >need
>> >> > to be reigned in so the "poor" will have a chance.
>> >>
>> >> Ed
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>
>
 
In article <vsq6brasmia4ca@corp.supernews.com>,
"The Ancient One" <onlytheone@thetopknows.com> wrote:
>
>"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
>news:bqit3e$of5$1@puck.cc.emory.edu...
>> In article <Us5zb.282500$275.1000782@attbi_s53>,
>> tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
>> >In article <bqinb6$him$8@puck.cc.emory.edu>, Lloyd Parker wrote:
>> >
>> >> Yeah, it'd be terrible if everybody were covered and we spent less on
>> health
>> >> care, as Europe, Canada, and Japan do, wouldn't it? Terrible for
>insurance
>> >> companies, drug companies, HMOs, etc, that is.
>> >
>> >How would we spend "less on health care" ? Instead of paying for health
>> >insurance we would pay *AT LEAST* that much in additional taxes.
>> >
>> >
>> Why is it, then, that every western European nation, plus Canada and
>Japan,
>> spend less per capita on health care than the US yet still cover
>everybody?
>
>They don't. If you're Canadian and the Doctor discovers a cancerous tumor
>that needs immediate treatment, they have to come to the USA to get it, in
>Canada, with a set health budget, you wait six months to a year for
>treatment, until the government can "afford" to pay for your "free"
>treatment. If you happen to die first great, less money they have to spend.
>You really are stupid aren't you?

You must be, if you think we believe these lies.

>
>
 
In article <3FCD2603.3BC69F50@kinez.net>,
Bill Putney <bputney@kinez.net> wrote:
>
>
>Lloyd Parker wrote:
>>
>> In article <3FCCE917.CEB3EFBE@greg.greg>, Greg <greg@greg.greg> wrote:
>> >Lloyd Parker wrote:
>> >
>> >> In article <MfVyb.61262$t01.28458@twister.socal.rr.com>,
>> >> "David J. Allen" <dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >"Brent P" <tetraethyllead@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> >> >news:NHTyb.384552$HS4.3166098@attbi_s01...
>> >> >> In article <3FCBD92E.AA0EBC33@kinez.net>, Bill Putney wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> > I think z would go for the California model for "conservation"
wherein
>> >> >> > you legally ban the building of power generation facilities, then,
>> when
>> >> >> > the demand far outstrips the supply capacity, the price for energy
>> goes
>> >> >> > up so high that everyone turns their a.c. off because they can't
>> afford
>> >> >> > to run them - everybody wins because, once again, everyone is
forced
>> >> >> > down to the same level of misery - equality achieved at last. Oh
one
>> >> >> > catch - the people responsible aren't even allowed to finish out
their
>> >> >> > term due to the anger of the recipients of the benevolence of the
>> >> >> > government.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> You forgot the best aspect. The rich elites can still afford the
>> >> >> higher rates and can keep their AC on without any supply problems.
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >Reminds me of my experience in a country a few years ago that had
"free"
>> >> >(i.e., rationed) medical care for all. The demand for care
outstripped
>> the
>> >> >supply and the only people who got decent medical care were the people
>> with
>> >> >money, who could pay for a private doctor. Everyone else had to go
wait
>> in
>> >> >line at the clinic and hope for decent care.
>> >>
>> >> As opposed to here, where if you don't have insurance, or aren't rich,
you
>> >> either go bankrupt or do without any care?
>> >
>> >Again Lloyd, not true, except perhaps in your alternate reality, where
>> (unnamed)
>> >people in this group are Taliban that stone women for learning to read and
>> shoot
>> >as US troops . Hospitals may not turn people away for care by law.
>> >
>> Only in an emergency is a hospital required to treat anybody, and as soon
as
>> they're "stable" they can be turned out. Need dialysis? No hospital is
>> required to do that for free, for example.
>
>You're free to pay for their healthcare any time you want. But what
>idiot believes that they have the right to reach into my pocket and take
>what is mine (it's called stealing). So - really - who is preventing
>you and anyone who feels that way from paying for the treatment of these
>people? You have that right, as do I - but by freedom of will - not by
>confiscation.
>

It's called living in a society. Society has the right to compel you to pay
taxes, and it's the height of idiocy to call it stealing or theft. If you
don't want to live in a society, you can leave. Nobody's keeping you here.

>Bill Putney
>(to reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
>address with "x")
>
>
>-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
>http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
>-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
 
In article <vsq6jtru8cnd96@corp.supernews.com>,
"The Ancient One" <onlytheone@thetopknows.com> wrote:
>
>"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
>news:bqitfk$of5$4@puck.cc.emory.edu...
>> In article <3FCCEA4D.9F9665EC@greg.greg>, Greg <greg@greg.greg> wrote:
>> >Lloyd Parker wrote:
>> >
>> >> Yeah, it'd be terrible if everybody were covered and we spent less on
>> health
>> >> care, as Europe, Canada, and Japan do, wouldn't it? Terrible for
>insurance
>> >> companies, drug companies, HMOs, etc, that is.
>> >
>> >Many HMOs are not even for profit.
>>
>> Huh? They're all run by insurance companies, and they sure are for
>profit.
>> In most states, even Blue Cross is now for profit.
>>
>>
>> > And let's attack drug companies and put them
>> >out of business.
>>
>> 1. They earn a greater return on capital than any other industry.
>> 2. They take drugs discovered and tested with tax-funded research and make
>> huge profits on them.
>> 3. They do fine in other countries where they aren't allowed such
>exorbitant
>> profits.
>>
>>
>> > After all we can all just invent our own miracle drugs,
>>
>> Most are -- most new drugs come out of government-funded university
>research.
>>
>>
>> >so who
>> >needs pharmecutical companies? I'm sure you've contributed even more
>useful
>> drugs
>> >than average given your superior chemistry background. Finally, having
>the
>> >government do as a monopoly what the private sector can do is socialism
>you'd
>> end
>> >up spending far more under your socialism plan.
>> >
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> But why not a single-payer, like Canada then? You wouldn't have
>national
>> >> health care, just national health insurance.
>> >
>> >Huh? Even HillaryClintonCare was forecast to cost in double digit
>TRILLIONS
>> of
>> >dollars.
>>
>> And what do you think we spend now on health care?
>>
>>
>> > And yes, the Canada care system with its people fleeing to the US to get
>> >needed healthcare would be an improvement in your alternate reality.
>>
>> Totally false.
>
>Totally true, reported many times in the news. Stop lying Parker, it doesn't
>work, we are all smarter than you, even my dog.

It's false. Totally, absolutely false. Read:

http://www-2.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs.cmu.edu/user/clamen/misc/politics/HealthCare/Co
nsumerReports-Sep92.html.gz#Does%20Canada%20Have%20The%20Answer?

>
>>
>>
>> > Trouble is
>> >where would the US people go that needed urgent care with the Canada
>system
>> here?
>> >
>> Why are Canadian retirees moving back to Canada? Why are American seniors
>> going their for their medicine?
>
>
>Big difference between buying medicine and receiving medical treatment, but
>you knew that, you just enjoy lying.
>
>
 
In article <3FCD297E.ACDFBAB3@kinez.net>,
Bill Putney <bputney@kinez.net> wrote:
>
>
>Lloyd Parker wrote:
>>
>> > And yes, the Canada care system with its people fleeing to the US to get
>> >needed healthcare would be an improvement in your alternate reality.
>>
>> Totally false.
>
>True. I personally witnessed this while actively spending over a year
>on an internet forum strictly for parents of a certain childhood form of
>cancer. There were people from all over the world on there, but
>particularly the U.S., Canada, and Britain. The gross malpractice that
>we witnessed on children in Canada due to its metered out healthcare was
>atrocious. The U.S. was the mecca of successful treatment.

If you're rich.

>
>Bill Putney
>(to reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
>address with "x")
>
>
>-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
>http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
>-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
 
In article <3FCD281D.ED699881@kinez.net>,
Bill Putney <bputney@kinez.net> wrote:
>
>
>Lloyd Parker wrote:
>>
>> So are conservatives -- telling people what kind of sex to have...
>
>Huh!?
>

Sodomy laws. Liberals didn't pass them.

>> , what genders
>> can marry,
>
>Well, yeah - the word "marriage" has a meaning.

Why does a government decide who can get married though?


>But of course you want
>to re-define it. Why not redefine "murder" as meaning "whitewashing a
>fence", or "talking" as "combing your hair" - that would make just as
>much sense.
>
>> what a woman can do with her body, etc.
>
>When I and others are forced to pay for the consequences, yes.

Actually, you want to force a woman to have the baby and then refuse to pay
for any expense of raising the child.


>Don't
>make me and others pay for the consequences for her behavior, and I'll
>quit telling her what she can and can't do that I and others will have
>to pay for later.
>
>Bill Putney
>(to reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
>address with "x")
>
>
>-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
>http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
>-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
 
In article <3FCD3824.12530D76@greg.greg>, Greg <greg@greg.greg> wrote:
>Lloyd Parker wrote:
>
>> In article <MK5zb.46$rE3.8@twister.socal.rr.com>,
>> "David J. Allen" <dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote:
>> >> >> Yeah, that's a requirement for a grant, like your predecessors here
>> >> >> say. You have to say 'and if funded, this project will destroy
>> >> >> capitalism and further the crypto-communist agenda, destroying the
>> >> >> middle class life style of myself and others like me and my family'.
>> >> >> Bravo, you've figured it out. Down with science!!!
>> >> >
>> >> >This is the strategy of the left. When they find them on the wrong
side
>> >of
>> >> >morality, they redefine morality. Now it's science. If you disagree
>> >with
>> >> >the "science" of global warming (and the global disaster it leads to)
>> >then
>> >> >you reject science. Likewise, morality is no longer fidelity, honesty,
>> >> >personal responsibility. It's now support for the policies of the
left,
>> >> >like gay marriage and adopting the Kyoto protocol.
>> >>
>> >> Spoken like a good little creationist.
>> >>
>> >
>> >Who? Me? I don't buy into "Creation Science". But the lefts
redefinition
>> >of "morality" and "science" is no different than what Creationists do to
>> >force fit science into Genesis. Only it's force fit of science (and
>> >religion) into anti-capitalism.
>>
>> No, you reject facts that don't fit your dogma. That's creationism.
>>
>> >
>> >> >
>> >> >The groups standing behind extreme environmentalists are Socialists and
>> >> >Communists. They are idealogical siblings to protect people from "evil
>> >> >corporations".
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> And the folks standing behind you and your ilk are Fascists and Nazis.
>> >Want
>> >> to call names? OK.
>> >
>> >Not at all. When you see who shows up to those anti-globalist
>> >(anti-corporate) demonstrations you see Socialist signs and booths all
over
>> >the place. No "name" calling was intended. And if you're looking for
nasty
>> >names to fit conservatives, you're really missing the mark with Fascist
and
>> >Nazi. Those are on the opposite side of the political spectrum, away from
>> >limited government.
>>
>> So are conservatives -- telling people what kind of sex to have, what
genders
>> can marry, what a woman can do with her body, etc.
>
>Since when to conservatives as an aggregate tell people what kind of sex to
>have??? You're posting from an alternate reality again.
>
Sodomy laws?
 
In article <2c7qsvgrtldnv0d50g0u57c2j0cadcc7if@4ax.com>,
Bill Funk <bfunk33@pipping.com> wrote:
>On Tue, 02 Dec 03 15:37:02 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
>wrote:
>
>>In article <Us5zb.282500$275.1000782@attbi_s53>,
>> tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
>>>In article <bqinb6$him$8@puck.cc.emory.edu>, Lloyd Parker wrote:
>>>
>>>> Yeah, it'd be terrible if everybody were covered and we spent less on
>>health
>>>> care, as Europe, Canada, and Japan do, wouldn't it? Terrible for
insurance
>>>> companies, drug companies, HMOs, etc, that is.
>>>
>>>How would we spend "less on health care" ? Instead of paying for health
>>>insurance we would pay *AT LEAST* that much in additional taxes.
>>>
>>>
>>Why is it, then, that every western European nation, plus Canada and Japan,
>>spend less per capita on health care than the US yet still cover everybody?
>
>Lloyd, you might want to do a Google search on the keywords:
>canadian health care problems
>This would let you see reality instead of the utopia your liberal
>friends promise.
>

Oh great, he wants me to absorb his right-wing propaganda.

Try this:

http://www-2.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs.cmu.edu/user/clamen/misc/politics/HealthCare/Co
nsumerReports-Sep92.html.gz#Does%20Canada%20Have%20The%20Answer?
 
In article <B_udnW3M_c2XuFCiRTvUrg@texas.net>, Steve <no@spam.thanks> wrote:
>Brandon Sommerville wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 02 Dec 03 15:40:02 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>No, you reject facts that don't fit your dogma. That's creationism.
>>
>>
>> This is priceless.
>
>
>Indeed. Especially since Lloyd is defining himself as a creationist. He
>rejects facts that don't fit his dogma (see the Suzuki/CR thread),

Nobody presented any "facts" there, just Suzuki's propaganda. Perhaps the
problem with you right-wing Taliban is you don't know what a "fact" is.

>therefore he's a creationist!
>
>As you said, priceless.
>
>
 
In article <3FCD2A75.F01F5664@kinez.net>,
Bill Putney <bputney@kinez.net> wrote:
>
>
>Lloyd Parker wrote:
>>
>> And yet they cover everybody and most of them have longer life spans and
less
>> infant mortality than the US. By any measure, those countries are
healthier.
>
>I can refer you to the parents of childhood cancer victims that would
>disagree with you.
>

Heck, you could refer me to Osama bin Laden himself; doesn't make you right.
Look at the numbers.


>Bill Putney
>(to reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
>address with "x")
>
>
>-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
>http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
>-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
 
In article <3FCD395E.3D06D971@greg.greg>, Greg <greg@greg.greg> wrote:
>Lloyd Parker wrote:
>
>> In article <3FCCE917.CEB3EFBE@greg.greg>, Greg <greg@greg.greg> wrote:
>> >Lloyd Parker wrote:
>> >
>> >> In article <MfVyb.61262$t01.28458@twister.socal.rr.com>,
>> >> "David J. Allen" <dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >"Brent P" <tetraethyllead@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> >> >news:NHTyb.384552$HS4.3166098@attbi_s01...
>> >> >> In article <3FCBD92E.AA0EBC33@kinez.net>, Bill Putney wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> > I think z would go for the California model for "conservation"
wherein
>> >> >> > you legally ban the building of power generation facilities, then,
>> when
>> >> >> > the demand far outstrips the supply capacity, the price for energy
>> goes
>> >> >> > up so high that everyone turns their a.c. off because they can't
>> afford
>> >> >> > to run them - everybody wins because, once again, everyone is
forced
>> >> >> > down to the same level of misery - equality achieved at last. Oh
one
>> >> >> > catch - the people responsible aren't even allowed to finish out
their
>> >> >> > term due to the anger of the recipients of the benevolence of the
>> >> >> > government.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> You forgot the best aspect. The rich elites can still afford the
>> >> >> higher rates and can keep their AC on without any supply problems.
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >Reminds me of my experience in a country a few years ago that had
"free"
>> >> >(i.e., rationed) medical care for all. The demand for care
outstripped
>> the
>> >> >supply and the only people who got decent medical care were the people
>> with
>> >> >money, who could pay for a private doctor. Everyone else had to go
wait
>> in
>> >> >line at the clinic and hope for decent care.
>> >>
>> >> As opposed to here, where if you don't have insurance, or aren't rich,
you
>> >> either go bankrupt or do without any care?
>> >
>> >Again Lloyd, not true, except perhaps in your alternate reality, where
>> (unnamed)
>> >people in this group are Taliban that stone women for learning to read and
>> shoot
>> >as US troops . Hospitals may not turn people away for care by law.
>> >
>> Only in an emergency is a hospital required to treat anybody, and as soon
as
>> they're "stable" they can be turned out. Need dialysis? No hospital is
>> required to do that for free, for example.
>
>Absolutely False! Hospitals in the US do this every single day. Why don't
you
>volunteer at your local hospital. You will certainly learn something.

No hospital is required to do anything but stablize an emergency patient.
Some may choose to do other things, or, as our local hospital does, get a
county subsidy to treat indigent patients.

>
 
In article <bql0h3$c29$4@puck.cc.emory.edu>, Lloyd Parker wrote:
> tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
>>In article <bqit3e$of5$1@puck.cc.emory.edu>, Lloyd Parker wrote:
>>> tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
>>>>In article <bqinb6$him$8@puck.cc.emory.edu>, Lloyd Parker wrote:

>>>>> Yeah, it'd be terrible if everybody were covered and we spent less on health
>>>>> care, as Europe, Canada, and Japan do, wouldn't it? Terrible for insurance
>>>>> companies, drug companies, HMOs, etc, that is.

>>>>How would we spend "less on health care" ? Instead of paying for health
>>>>insurance we would pay *AT LEAST* that much in additional taxes.

>>> Why is it, then, that every western European nation, plus Canada and Japan,
>>> spend less per capita on health care than the US yet still cover everybody?

>>Answer a question with a question. How does your state run health care
>>system cost less than the current private one?

> Because all the examples we have of state-run health care say it would.
> Economy of scale, negotiation for lower prices, preventative care instead of
> waiting until the person becomes sick -- all these and other factors.

So your answer is we would save money through the reduced quality of care.
I suggest you gain some experience with how government price controls
have a negative impact on care, at least with regards to how it works
in the USA.


 
David J. Allen wrote:

> Why can't you see the conservative vs. liberal debate as one based on role
> of federal government instead of merely accusing conservatives of being
> "rascist", "homophobe", "sexist", "bigoted". All those labels are debate
> enders.

Exactly. That's the only way he can "win" the debate, which is why those
(inaccurate) labels keep getting thrown at the wall in hope they'll stick.



 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

S
Defenders Vs Insurers tomfoolery
Replies
1
Views
4K
lightning
lightning
300bhp/ton
Driven: New Defender - On & Off Road. Is it a Pretender?
2 3
Replies
50
Views
9K
Squonker
S
P
Range Rover P38 EKA and BeCM Lockout
Replies
6
Views
5K
Doolinjames
D
natas
Hurricane Dorian survivor.
Replies
8
Views
2K
ProjectX
ProjectX
Alibro
How to recondition a VCU yourself.
15 16 17
Replies
325
Views
55K
Alibro
Alibro