Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
#5391
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safetycan be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
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.
>>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.
#5392
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safetycan be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
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.
>>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.
#5393
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safetycanbe misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
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
> 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
#5394
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safetycanbe misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
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
> 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
#5395
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safetycanbe misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
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
> 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
#5396
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
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?
> In article <Us5zb.282500$275.1000782@attbi_s53>,
> tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
>>In article <bqinb6$him$8@puck.cc.emory.edu>, Lloyd Parker wrote:
>>
>>> Yeah, it'd be terrible if everybody were covered and we spent less on
> health
>>> care, as Europe, Canada, and Japan do, wouldn't it? Terrible for insurance
>>> companies, drug companies, HMOs, etc, that is.
>>
>>How would we spend "less on health care" ? Instead of paying for health
>>insurance we would pay *AT LEAST* that much in additional taxes.
>>
>>
> Why is it, then, that every western European nation, plus Canada and Japan,
> spend less per capita on health care than the US yet still cover everybody?
Answer a question with a question. How does your state run health care
system cost less than the current private one?
#5397
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
In article <bqit3e$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?
> In article <Us5zb.282500$275.1000782@attbi_s53>,
> tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
>>In article <bqinb6$him$8@puck.cc.emory.edu>, Lloyd Parker wrote:
>>
>>> Yeah, it'd be terrible if everybody were covered and we spent less on
> health
>>> care, as Europe, Canada, and Japan do, wouldn't it? Terrible for insurance
>>> companies, drug companies, HMOs, etc, that is.
>>
>>How would we spend "less on health care" ? Instead of paying for health
>>insurance we would pay *AT LEAST* that much in additional taxes.
>>
>>
> Why is it, then, that every western European nation, plus Canada and Japan,
> spend less per capita on health care than the US yet still cover everybody?
Answer a question with a question. How does your state run health care
system cost less than the current private one?
#5398
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
In article <bqit3e$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?
> In article <Us5zb.282500$275.1000782@attbi_s53>,
> tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
>>In article <bqinb6$him$8@puck.cc.emory.edu>, Lloyd Parker wrote:
>>
>>> Yeah, it'd be terrible if everybody were covered and we spent less on
> health
>>> care, as Europe, Canada, and Japan do, wouldn't it? Terrible for insurance
>>> companies, drug companies, HMOs, etc, that is.
>>
>>How would we spend "less on health care" ? Instead of paying for health
>>insurance we would pay *AT LEAST* that much in additional taxes.
>>
>>
> Why is it, then, that every western European nation, plus Canada and Japan,
> spend less per capita on health care than the US yet still cover everybody?
Answer a question with a question. How does your state run health care
system cost less than the current private one?
#5399
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
news:bqinb6$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
> >>
> >
> >
#5400
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: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
> >>
> >
> >