Lloyd Parker wrote:

>
> >Well you don't even have this right. Canada has a much higher per capita
> energy
> >consumption than the US.
> >
> >Ed
> >
> Not as of 1997 at least. The only nations higher than the US are Qatar,
> Bahrain, UAE, Netherlands, Kuwait, and Luxembourg.
>
> (from http://www.earthtrends.wri.org/text/ENG/variables/351.htm)

I guess there are charts that differ on this. Some show Canada far ahead of the
US and some slightly behind. Also charts that quote "Primary Energy Consumption
per GDP" usually show Canada well ahead of the US. I guess someone is going to
have to explain the difference between "Primary Energy" and just plan "Energy."

http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/international/iealf/tablee1c.xls
http://www.maui.net/~jstark/nrgfacts.html
http://www.unitednorthamerica.org/simdiff.htm

Here is an interesting reference for you -

http://www.eccj.or.jp/result/eng/13.html

Look down to the chart that shows World CO2 Emission per GDP and tell me if you
think moving production to China is a good thing.

Ed

 
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?
 
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.

>
>
 
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.
 
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.


> 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?
 
In article <JX5zb.48$rE3.36@twister.socal.rr.com>,
"David J. Allen" <dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote:
>
>> >
>> >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.
>>
>> But why not a single-payer, like Canada then? You wouldn't have national
>> health care, just national health insurance.
>>
>
>That's the point. A national HMO.

No, a national insurance. Like Medicare, which runs with less overhead than
any private insurance company, and which seniors love.


> You don't really think the government
>would be better at controlling costs that an HMO do you?

Actually, here the data (Medicare) shows it is.


> Oh, and I suppose
>you think the government would do a better job of devoloping drugs that
>pharmaceuticals?

Most are done that way now -- government-funded university research.


>IF those countries you mention actually do spend less (per
>capita) on health care than in the US, it's because those governments are
>"controlling" costs, i.e., limiting the supply.

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.

>
>> >
>> >> > 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
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>
>
 
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.

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 <3FCCF1D1.ACBB3171@greg.greg>, Greg <greg@greg.greg> wrote:
>Lloyd Parker wrote:
>
>> In article <3FCCD887.D942F3A9@greg.greg>, John S <john_s@no.spam> wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> >z wrote:
>> >
>> >> tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote in message
>> news:<O0Lyb.274685$ao4.944751@attbi_s51>...
>> >> > In article <b5b4685f.0312010918.6e702dc5@posting.google.com>, z wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> > > They are going to move production of CO2 to China? All those
>> >> > > inefficient old coal-fired power plants are going to China?
>> >> >
>> >> > What is better? An old inefficient regulated to be as clean as
feasiable
>> >> > coal power plant in the USA feeding a factory with electricity or a
>> >> > quick-and-dirty-old-tech-soviet-style coal plant in china feeding a
>> >> > factory? Which is better for the environment?
>> >> >
>> >> > And why do we have old coal plants in the USA? Because any new plants
>> >> > are opposed on environmental grounds. And new and better means of
>> >> > generation are opposed on environmental grounds. So what we get
>> >> > is the status quo. The status quo remains because change is not
>> >> > possible.
>> >>
>> >> Yeah, the old rightwing fantasy factory rides again. Do you recall the
>> >> Clean Air Act? Do you recall that the power companies piteously pled
>> >> for and were granted an exemption for their old coal and oil fuelled
>> >> plants, since the power companies promised that they were going to be
>> >> all mothballed soon anyway and it would be purely wasteful to upgrade
>> >> them for the short time they will be in operation? Well, it's thirty
>> >> years later now, and here in CT, half the electricity is still being
>> >> produced by those old 'soon to be mothballed' plants, known locally as
>> >> the Filthy Five. This is not because the utility companies are just
>> >> dying to build some expensive clean new plants and the
>> >> environmentalists just won't let them. It's purely because it's much
>> >> cheaper to run these monstrosities unmodified than it is to build new
>> >> plants, despite the environmentalists screaming to trade them for
>> >> clean new plants or else update them. The Reagan and Bush I
>> >> administrations refused to enforce the part of the Clean Air Act that
>> >> requires the companies to install upgraded pollution controls if they
>> >> were doing significant expansions to the plants, in contrast to
>> >> routine maintenance, allowing the Filthy Five to actually expand their
>> >> filthy emissions. The Clinton administration finally starts to enforce
>> >> this provision, and what happens? The Bush junta reverses the
>> >> enforcement decision. And in response to this boondoggle, the
>> >> utilities raise their rates 10%.
>> >
>> >That's not true at all. First of all, the Bush I administration SIGNED
the
>> Clean Air Act
>> >amendments in 1990 into law, which strenghthened, not weakened the Clean
Air
>> Act. Secondly, the
>> >act was and is being enforced. The act was designed to require NEW PLANTS
>> (new sources) to have
>> >much more stringent controls with updated technology. Older plants would
be
>> initially exempted
>> >because of common sense economics. However pollution from these older
palnts
>> would then be capped
>> >and traded, so plants pay for their negative externalities (pollution) and
>> production is shifted to
>> >the most efficient (by this I mean less polluting) plants because they are
>> cheaper to operate due
>> >to the cost of pollution credits. In this way all plants use the most
>> advanced pollution controls
>> >available to them. Eventually the older plants are shut down or upgraded
>> (when they WOULD be
>> >subject to New Source controls) because they are too expensive to operate
or
>> they get too old to
>> >operate anyway.
>> >
>> >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).
>
>MAJOR modifications. Not minor improvements which would INCREASE efficiency,
such
>as a new version of wear items such as turbine blades.
>
>> 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.
>
>No. The law clearly states that merely replacing parts is NOT new source.
Try
>becoming familiar with what you talk about.
>

Replacing may not be, but changing one part for a DIFFERENT one is, and should
be. Otherwise, you'd have the scenario I mentioned.

>>
>>
>> Treating it this way
>> >subjected the plants specifically exempted from the statue to the
>> requirements of new plants.
>>
>> But if the plants get modified instead of just "serviced and cleaned",
that's
>> precisely what the law intended. That's why the EPA sued a number of
utility
>> companies, why a number of them settled, and why the suits continued until
>> Bush decided to "reinterpet" the law just this year.;
>
>Actually all Bush did was interpret the law exactly as it was WRITTEN in the
>statue, and had been enforced pre Browner and friends.

Not true. I refer you to the suits the EPA filed.

>
>>
>>
>> ?This
>> >had the perverse incentive of indicating to plant owners that routine
>> maintenance is a BAD IDEA to
>> >do, because the Government will come after you for doing it. Better to
defer
>> maintenance and not
>> >keep plants in the most effiicent manner they can be reasonably operated
in.
>> But the effect of
>> >this is that when routine maintenance and minor upgrades become to
expensive
>> because of overzealous
>> >regulation, the effect is that nothing is done and instead the most
polluting
>> plants are left in
>> >operation as is, with no improvements all. The WSJ has reported
extensively
>> on this, and
>>
>> The WSJ never met an environmental reg it liked, because it never met a
>> corporate profit it didn't want increased.
>
>What on earth are you babbling about? You can't make your argument with
actual
>facts, so you attack/smear the messenger.

I suggest you cite some source other than one rabidly pro-business to have any
credibility.


> Try actually reading the WSJ for once
>in your life and you would know that you are wrong as when you said that
Daimler
>Chrysler was the only foreign company listed on the New York Stock Exchange,
as if
>Sony of Japan (NYSE:SNE) or Deutsch Bank AG (NYSE: DB) and others didn't
even
>exist!
>

You're confusing ADRs with actual shares of stock.

>
>
>>
>>
>> >specifically about how the Clinton EPA chief was upset that plants were
TOO
>> CLEAN because they
>> >needed something to rail against to publicity. This was all recorded in
>> memos.
>>
>> It was not.
>
> Wrong, the Wall Street Journal printed some of these memos not too long
ago. And
>those were the ones that did not get quietly destroyed by Browner on the last
full
>day of the Clinton adminstration. ABC News reported on April 30 2001 that
Clinton
>EPA Administrator Browner had ordered her records and hard drives destroyed,
>against US District Court Judge Royce Lamberth's order. I guess the
Clinton
>Administration is good in your eyes for Enron style shredding. The
philosophy of
>the Clinton EPA was to do grandstanding rulemaking, without required
legislation
>or even sound policies. Let me guess, now you're going to start saying how
ABC
>News is really just a shill. too. Ha!
>
>>
>>
>> >
>> >The Bush plan restores the EPA's mandated New Source Review. But it's
easier
>> for people to make
>> >silly attacks on Bush, because they cannot comprehend the actual laws, the
>> reason why they were
>> >written, the actual effects that they have, the effect of enforcing
non-laws,
>> or what is going on
>> >in general.
>>
>> Next you'll be telling us how good Bush is for the environment! LOL!
>
>A lot better than his predecessor, who created perverse incentives for plants
NOT
>to get cleaner, and HALTED dead brush cleanup in forests so that they could
become
>tinderboxes for massive fires. Bush is giving us low sulfur diesel fuel,
the low
>arsenic water standard which Clinton denied drinkers in 1996, and Bush's EPA
is
>forcing General Electric to clean up PCBs for the entire Hudson River.
Thanks for
>all those fires, Mr. Clinton. Thanks for conveniently destroying the
government
>records on the way out too. Glad you were so proud of your record that you
needed
>to erase it.
>
>I'll repost that story that was posted before, because you conveniently
forgot to
>comment on it!
>
> "In one famous case, DTE Energy Corp., parent of Detroit Edison Co., tried
to
>replace older, less efficient propeller blades in several steam turbines at
its
>biggest coal-fired plant. The new blades were 15% more efficient than the
old,
>meaning they could generate 15% more power using the same amount of
energy--more
>power, less pollution. But the Clinton EPA threatened to invoke New Source
Review
>anyway, so the plan was scrapped.
>
> Not that Detroit Edison and others are avoiding heavy pollution-fighting
>expenses. At the very same plant, Detroit Edison is spending $650 million to
meet
>new nitrogen oxide standards--an expense that won't generate a single new
kilowatt
>of electricity.
>
> Bureaucrats, of course, interpret such a rational response to perverse rules
as a
>sign of corporate greed. So when the Clinton administration found that at
least
>80% of the nation's utilities were violating its New Source Review
guidelines, it
>didn't bother to ask whether something might be wrong with its policies. It
simply
>filed an avalanche of lawsuits demanding huge fines.
>
>Yet EPA data clearly show that emissions of nitrogen oxide and sulfur
dioxide, the
>two main industrial pollutants, have declined substantially despite a
tripling of
>coal usage. Future Clean Air targets will reduce emissions a further 50%."
-WSJ
>11/26/02
>
>
>
 
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.

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 <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?


 

"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
> >>
> >
> >


 

"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?


 

"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.

>
>
> > 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.


 
On Tue, 02 Dec 2003 14:33:43 -0500, Greg <greg@greg.greg> wrote:

>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.

Not so.
Hospitals must 'stabilize' emergency cases, but otherwise, they may
turn away those seeking aid.
--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"
 
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.
--
Brandon Sommerville
remove ".gov" to e-mail

Definition of "Lottery":
Millions of stupid people contributing
to make one stupid person look smart.
 
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.

--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"
 
On Tue, 02 Dec 03 15:43:32 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (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.

Wow, Lloyd, you really are in an ivory tower, aren't you?
Do that Google search I recommended, and learn.

--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"
 
On Tue, 02 Dec 03 13:57:22 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
wrote:

>In article <4tgpsv0qjj3fk9mq5t2goiuibmpnu8k64r@4ax.com>,
> Bill Funk <bfunk33@pipping.com> wrote:
>>On Tue, 02 Dec 2003 05:17:32 GMT, "David J. Allen"
>><dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> 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.
>>
>>Well, Hillary's solution would have fixed that; any doctor caught
>>giving care outside the approved system would be liable to legal
>>prosecution, with penalties including fines, jail time & loss of
>>license.
>
>That's a lie. That was never, ever part of any proposal. The plan was
>similar to Canada's -- a single payer, with anyone being able to purchase
>additional private insurance. What was banned was selling insurance that
>covered the SAME thing the government plan would already cover.

No lie.
It was called "Managed Competition".
Look it up, and learn.
>
>>A true utopia.
>>>
>>>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.
>>

--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"
 

"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
news:bqiml8$him$3@puck.cc.emory.edu...
> In article <SNLyb.60941$t01.26184@twister.socal.rr.com>,
> "David J. Allen" <dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote:
> >
> >"z" <gzuckier@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> >news:b5b4685f.0312010806.78d80d53@posting.google.com...
> >> "Jerry McG" <gmcgeorge.REMOVE@frontier.net> wrote in message
> >news:<bqbpqa021gd@enews2.newsguy.com>...
> >> > > I'd rather take my chances with global warming rather than turn
> >control
> >> > over to the wackos who have grabbed onto the global warming scenario
as
> >a
> >> > way to force the implementation of their ideas of how I should live.
If
> >> > global warming wasn't
> >> > available, the wackos would have to create it, or something else like
it
> >so
> >> > they can have an excuse for forcing the implementation of their
ideas.>
> >> >
> >> > Bravo, Ed! These people are attempting to impose their own social
> >> > reengineering upon everyone based upon their own crypto-communist
> >ideals.
> >> > They hate capitalism and the abilities of free peoples to do as they
> >choose.
> >> > They latched onto this madness when people actually took them
seriously
> >30
> >> > years ago that a "new ice age" was upon us, when that fell apart they
> >> > concocted this latest scam. The more people pillory these arrogant
> >bastards
> >> > the better off we'll all be.
> >>
> >>
> >> 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.
>
> >
> >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.

There aren't any names bad enough to call you Lloyd, you are beyond totally,
hopelessly braindead, the last time you had an intelligent thought was when
you decided to further your education, although your Daddy probably made
that decision for you, and did your work for you so you could pass. Do you
appoint one of your students to teach your classes for you, so your
stupidity won't be revealed?



 

"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
news:bqit92$of5$2@puck.cc.emory.edu...
> In article <MK5zb.46$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.

Surprise surprise Lloyd, that is exactly what you do, reject any facts that
aren't pre-approved for you by your Liberal buddies.
That's stupidity, which describes you to a "T".

>
> >
> >> >
> >> >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.
>
>

You are a sick excuse for a human lloyd, why don't you go visit Nate?


 
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