Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
#5371
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
news:bqimqg$him$4@puck.cc.emory.edu...
> In article <MfVyb.61262$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?
>
Hardly the only choices facing the uninsured and non-rich. Maybe you wish
that was really the case to give more weight to the feds taking over medical
care.
> >
> >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.
> >
> >
#5372
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety canbe misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
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$HS4.3166098@attbi_s01...
> >> In article <3FCBD92E.AA0EBC33@kinez.net>, Bill Putney wrote:
> >>
> >> > I think z would go for the California model for "conservation" wherein
> >> > you legally ban the building of power generation facilities, then, when
> >> > the demand far outstrips the supply capacity, the price for energy goes
> >> > up so high that everyone turns their a.c. off because they can't afford
> >> > to run them - everybody wins because, once again, everyone is forced
> >> > down to the same level of misery - equality achieved at last. Oh one
> >> > catch - the people responsible aren't even allowed to finish out their
> >> > term due to the anger of the recipients of the benevolence of the
> >> > government.
> >>
> >> You forgot the best aspect. The rich elites can still afford the
> >> higher rates and can keep their AC on without any supply problems.
> >>
> >>
> >Reminds me of my experience in a country a few years ago that had "free"
> >(i.e., rationed) medical care for all. The demand for care outstripped the
> >supply and the only people who got decent medical care were the people with
> >money, who could pay for a private doctor. Everyone else had to go wait in
> >line at the clinic and hope for decent care.
>
> As opposed to here, where if you don't have insurance, or aren't rich, you
> either go bankrupt or do without any care?
Again Lloyd, not true, except perhaps in your alternate reality, where (unnamed)
people in this group are Taliban that stone women for learning to read and shoot
as US troops . Hospitals may not turn people away for care by law.
> In article <MfVyb.61262$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$HS4.3166098@attbi_s01...
> >> In article <3FCBD92E.AA0EBC33@kinez.net>, Bill Putney wrote:
> >>
> >> > I think z would go for the California model for "conservation" wherein
> >> > you legally ban the building of power generation facilities, then, when
> >> > the demand far outstrips the supply capacity, the price for energy goes
> >> > up so high that everyone turns their a.c. off because they can't afford
> >> > to run them - everybody wins because, once again, everyone is forced
> >> > down to the same level of misery - equality achieved at last. Oh one
> >> > catch - the people responsible aren't even allowed to finish out their
> >> > term due to the anger of the recipients of the benevolence of the
> >> > government.
> >>
> >> You forgot the best aspect. The rich elites can still afford the
> >> higher rates and can keep their AC on without any supply problems.
> >>
> >>
> >Reminds me of my experience in a country a few years ago that had "free"
> >(i.e., rationed) medical care for all. The demand for care outstripped the
> >supply and the only people who got decent medical care were the people with
> >money, who could pay for a private doctor. Everyone else had to go wait in
> >line at the clinic and hope for decent care.
>
> As opposed to here, where if you don't have insurance, or aren't rich, you
> either go bankrupt or do without any care?
Again Lloyd, not true, except perhaps in your alternate reality, where (unnamed)
people in this group are Taliban that stone women for learning to read and shoot
as US troops . Hospitals may not turn people away for care by law.
#5373
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety canbe misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
Lloyd Parker wrote:
> In article <MfVyb.61262$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$HS4.3166098@attbi_s01...
> >> In article <3FCBD92E.AA0EBC33@kinez.net>, Bill Putney wrote:
> >>
> >> > I think z would go for the California model for "conservation" wherein
> >> > you legally ban the building of power generation facilities, then, when
> >> > the demand far outstrips the supply capacity, the price for energy goes
> >> > up so high that everyone turns their a.c. off because they can't afford
> >> > to run them - everybody wins because, once again, everyone is forced
> >> > down to the same level of misery - equality achieved at last. Oh one
> >> > catch - the people responsible aren't even allowed to finish out their
> >> > term due to the anger of the recipients of the benevolence of the
> >> > government.
> >>
> >> You forgot the best aspect. The rich elites can still afford the
> >> higher rates and can keep their AC on without any supply problems.
> >>
> >>
> >Reminds me of my experience in a country a few years ago that had "free"
> >(i.e., rationed) medical care for all. The demand for care outstripped the
> >supply and the only people who got decent medical care were the people with
> >money, who could pay for a private doctor. Everyone else had to go wait in
> >line at the clinic and hope for decent care.
>
> As opposed to here, where if you don't have insurance, or aren't rich, you
> either go bankrupt or do without any care?
Again Lloyd, not true, except perhaps in your alternate reality, where (unnamed)
people in this group are Taliban that stone women for learning to read and shoot
as US troops . Hospitals may not turn people away for care by law.
> In article <MfVyb.61262$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$HS4.3166098@attbi_s01...
> >> In article <3FCBD92E.AA0EBC33@kinez.net>, Bill Putney wrote:
> >>
> >> > I think z would go for the California model for "conservation" wherein
> >> > you legally ban the building of power generation facilities, then, when
> >> > the demand far outstrips the supply capacity, the price for energy goes
> >> > up so high that everyone turns their a.c. off because they can't afford
> >> > to run them - everybody wins because, once again, everyone is forced
> >> > down to the same level of misery - equality achieved at last. Oh one
> >> > catch - the people responsible aren't even allowed to finish out their
> >> > term due to the anger of the recipients of the benevolence of the
> >> > government.
> >>
> >> You forgot the best aspect. The rich elites can still afford the
> >> higher rates and can keep their AC on without any supply problems.
> >>
> >>
> >Reminds me of my experience in a country a few years ago that had "free"
> >(i.e., rationed) medical care for all. The demand for care outstripped the
> >supply and the only people who got decent medical care were the people with
> >money, who could pay for a private doctor. Everyone else had to go wait in
> >line at the clinic and hope for decent care.
>
> As opposed to here, where if you don't have insurance, or aren't rich, you
> either go bankrupt or do without any care?
Again Lloyd, not true, except perhaps in your alternate reality, where (unnamed)
people in this group are Taliban that stone women for learning to read and shoot
as US troops . Hospitals may not turn people away for care by law.
#5374
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety canbe misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
Lloyd Parker wrote:
> In article <MfVyb.61262$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$HS4.3166098@attbi_s01...
> >> In article <3FCBD92E.AA0EBC33@kinez.net>, Bill Putney wrote:
> >>
> >> > I think z would go for the California model for "conservation" wherein
> >> > you legally ban the building of power generation facilities, then, when
> >> > the demand far outstrips the supply capacity, the price for energy goes
> >> > up so high that everyone turns their a.c. off because they can't afford
> >> > to run them - everybody wins because, once again, everyone is forced
> >> > down to the same level of misery - equality achieved at last. Oh one
> >> > catch - the people responsible aren't even allowed to finish out their
> >> > term due to the anger of the recipients of the benevolence of the
> >> > government.
> >>
> >> You forgot the best aspect. The rich elites can still afford the
> >> higher rates and can keep their AC on without any supply problems.
> >>
> >>
> >Reminds me of my experience in a country a few years ago that had "free"
> >(i.e., rationed) medical care for all. The demand for care outstripped the
> >supply and the only people who got decent medical care were the people with
> >money, who could pay for a private doctor. Everyone else had to go wait in
> >line at the clinic and hope for decent care.
>
> As opposed to here, where if you don't have insurance, or aren't rich, you
> either go bankrupt or do without any care?
Again Lloyd, not true, except perhaps in your alternate reality, where (unnamed)
people in this group are Taliban that stone women for learning to read and shoot
as US troops . Hospitals may not turn people away for care by law.
> In article <MfVyb.61262$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$HS4.3166098@attbi_s01...
> >> In article <3FCBD92E.AA0EBC33@kinez.net>, Bill Putney wrote:
> >>
> >> > I think z would go for the California model for "conservation" wherein
> >> > you legally ban the building of power generation facilities, then, when
> >> > the demand far outstrips the supply capacity, the price for energy goes
> >> > up so high that everyone turns their a.c. off because they can't afford
> >> > to run them - everybody wins because, once again, everyone is forced
> >> > down to the same level of misery - equality achieved at last. Oh one
> >> > catch - the people responsible aren't even allowed to finish out their
> >> > term due to the anger of the recipients of the benevolence of the
> >> > government.
> >>
> >> You forgot the best aspect. The rich elites can still afford the
> >> higher rates and can keep their AC on without any supply problems.
> >>
> >>
> >Reminds me of my experience in a country a few years ago that had "free"
> >(i.e., rationed) medical care for all. The demand for care outstripped the
> >supply and the only people who got decent medical care were the people with
> >money, who could pay for a private doctor. Everyone else had to go wait in
> >line at the clinic and hope for decent care.
>
> As opposed to here, where if you don't have insurance, or aren't rich, you
> either go bankrupt or do without any care?
Again Lloyd, not true, except perhaps in your alternate reality, where (unnamed)
people in this group are Taliban that stone women for learning to read and shoot
as US troops . Hospitals may not turn people away for care by law.
#5375
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
In article <bqinim$him$9@puck.cc.emory.edu>, Lloyd Parker wrote:
> 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.
> 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.
So what was put together was an all-or-nothing policy. Either the power
companies did everything or nothing. When they did some modernization
they were to be penalized. This sounds like a government power trip
more than sensible regulation to protect the environment the way you
describe it, parker.
1) Old plant, old tech = bad for the environment.
2) old plant, slowly moderized = better for the environment.
3) old plant, totally redone at one time = same as 3) with faster results.
4) New plant = best option for the environment.
Interesting how the regulation by your interpetation punishes a company for
doing 2) but not for doing 1). Was this supposed to be about the
environment or politics?
> 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.
> 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.
So what was put together was an all-or-nothing policy. Either the power
companies did everything or nothing. When they did some modernization
they were to be penalized. This sounds like a government power trip
more than sensible regulation to protect the environment the way you
describe it, parker.
1) Old plant, old tech = bad for the environment.
2) old plant, slowly moderized = better for the environment.
3) old plant, totally redone at one time = same as 3) with faster results.
4) New plant = best option for the environment.
Interesting how the regulation by your interpetation punishes a company for
doing 2) but not for doing 1). Was this supposed to be about the
environment or politics?
#5376
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
In article <bqinim$him$9@puck.cc.emory.edu>, Lloyd Parker wrote:
> 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.
> 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.
So what was put together was an all-or-nothing policy. Either the power
companies did everything or nothing. When they did some modernization
they were to be penalized. This sounds like a government power trip
more than sensible regulation to protect the environment the way you
describe it, parker.
1) Old plant, old tech = bad for the environment.
2) old plant, slowly moderized = better for the environment.
3) old plant, totally redone at one time = same as 3) with faster results.
4) New plant = best option for the environment.
Interesting how the regulation by your interpetation punishes a company for
doing 2) but not for doing 1). Was this supposed to be about the
environment or politics?
> 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.
> 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.
So what was put together was an all-or-nothing policy. Either the power
companies did everything or nothing. When they did some modernization
they were to be penalized. This sounds like a government power trip
more than sensible regulation to protect the environment the way you
describe it, parker.
1) Old plant, old tech = bad for the environment.
2) old plant, slowly moderized = better for the environment.
3) old plant, totally redone at one time = same as 3) with faster results.
4) New plant = best option for the environment.
Interesting how the regulation by your interpetation punishes a company for
doing 2) but not for doing 1). Was this supposed to be about the
environment or politics?
#5377
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
In article <bqinim$him$9@puck.cc.emory.edu>, Lloyd Parker wrote:
> 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.
> 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.
So what was put together was an all-or-nothing policy. Either the power
companies did everything or nothing. When they did some modernization
they were to be penalized. This sounds like a government power trip
more than sensible regulation to protect the environment the way you
describe it, parker.
1) Old plant, old tech = bad for the environment.
2) old plant, slowly moderized = better for the environment.
3) old plant, totally redone at one time = same as 3) with faster results.
4) New plant = best option for the environment.
Interesting how the regulation by your interpetation punishes a company for
doing 2) but not for doing 1). Was this supposed to be about the
environment or politics?
> 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.
> 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.
So what was put together was an all-or-nothing policy. Either the power
companies did everything or nothing. When they did some modernization
they were to be penalized. This sounds like a government power trip
more than sensible regulation to protect the environment the way you
describe it, parker.
1) Old plant, old tech = bad for the environment.
2) old plant, slowly moderized = better for the environment.
3) old plant, totally redone at one time = same as 3) with faster results.
4) New plant = best option for the environment.
Interesting how the regulation by your interpetation punishes a company for
doing 2) but not for doing 1). Was this supposed to be about the
environment or politics?
#5378
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety canbe misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
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. And let's attack drug companies and put them
out of business. After all we can all just invent our own miracle drugs, 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 yes, the Canada care system with its people fleeing to the US to get
needed healthcare would be an improvement in your alternate reality. Trouble is
where would the US people go that needed urgent care with the Canada system here?
> 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. And let's attack drug companies and put them
out of business. After all we can all just invent our own miracle drugs, 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 yes, the Canada care system with its people fleeing to the US to get
needed healthcare would be an improvement in your alternate reality. Trouble is
where would the US people go that needed urgent care with the Canada system here?
#5379
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety canbe misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
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. And let's attack drug companies and put them
out of business. After all we can all just invent our own miracle drugs, 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 yes, the Canada care system with its people fleeing to the US to get
needed healthcare would be an improvement in your alternate reality. Trouble is
where would the US people go that needed urgent care with the Canada system here?
> 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. And let's attack drug companies and put them
out of business. After all we can all just invent our own miracle drugs, 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 yes, the Canada care system with its people fleeing to the US to get
needed healthcare would be an improvement in your alternate reality. Trouble is
where would the US people go that needed urgent care with the Canada system here?
#5380
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety canbe misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
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. And let's attack drug companies and put them
out of business. After all we can all just invent our own miracle drugs, 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 yes, the Canada care system with its people fleeing to the US to get
needed healthcare would be an improvement in your alternate reality. Trouble is
where would the US people go that needed urgent care with the Canada system here?
> 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. And let's attack drug companies and put them
out of business. After all we can all just invent our own miracle drugs, 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 yes, the Canada care system with its people fleeing to the US to get
needed healthcare would be an improvement in your alternate reality. Trouble is
where would the US people go that needed urgent care with the Canada system here?