Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
#5291
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety canbe misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
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.
>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.
#5292
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety canbe misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
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.
>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.
#5293
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety canbe misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
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.
>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.
#5294
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety canbe misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
"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).
> 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
#5295
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety canbe misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
"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).
> 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
#5296
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety canbe misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
"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).
> 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
#5297
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety canbe misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
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?
>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?
#5298
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety canbe misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
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?
>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?
#5299
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety canbe misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
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?
>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?
#5300
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
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
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>
>
"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
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>
>