Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
#5401
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
> >>
> >
> >
#5402
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:bqit3e$of5$1@puck.cc.emory.edu...
> In article <Us5zb.282500$275.1000782@attbi_s53>,
> tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
> >In article <bqinb6$him$8@puck.cc.emory.edu>, Lloyd Parker wrote:
> >
> >> Yeah, it'd be terrible if everybody were covered and we spent less on
> health
> >> care, as Europe, Canada, and Japan do, wouldn't it? Terrible for
insurance
> >> companies, drug companies, HMOs, etc, that is.
> >
> >How would we spend "less on health care" ? Instead of paying for health
> >insurance we would pay *AT LEAST* that much in additional taxes.
> >
> >
> Why is it, then, that every western European nation, plus Canada and
Japan,
> spend less per capita on health care than the US yet still cover
everybody?
They don't. If you're Canadian and the Doctor discovers a cancerous tumor
that needs immediate treatment, they have to come to the USA to get it, in
Canada, with a set health budget, you wait six months to a year for
treatment, until the government can "afford" to pay for your "free"
treatment. If you happen to die first great, less money they have to spend.
You really are stupid aren't you?
#5403
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
news:bqit3e$of5$1@puck.cc.emory.edu...
> In article <Us5zb.282500$275.1000782@attbi_s53>,
> tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
> >In article <bqinb6$him$8@puck.cc.emory.edu>, Lloyd Parker wrote:
> >
> >> Yeah, it'd be terrible if everybody were covered and we spent less on
> health
> >> care, as Europe, Canada, and Japan do, wouldn't it? Terrible for
insurance
> >> companies, drug companies, HMOs, etc, that is.
> >
> >How would we spend "less on health care" ? Instead of paying for health
> >insurance we would pay *AT LEAST* that much in additional taxes.
> >
> >
> Why is it, then, that every western European nation, plus Canada and
Japan,
> spend less per capita on health care than the US yet still cover
everybody?
They don't. If you're Canadian and the Doctor discovers a cancerous tumor
that needs immediate treatment, they have to come to the USA to get it, in
Canada, with a set health budget, you wait six months to a year for
treatment, until the government can "afford" to pay for your "free"
treatment. If you happen to die first great, less money they have to spend.
You really are stupid aren't you?
#5404
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
news:bqit3e$of5$1@puck.cc.emory.edu...
> In article <Us5zb.282500$275.1000782@attbi_s53>,
> tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
> >In article <bqinb6$him$8@puck.cc.emory.edu>, Lloyd Parker wrote:
> >
> >> Yeah, it'd be terrible if everybody were covered and we spent less on
> health
> >> care, as Europe, Canada, and Japan do, wouldn't it? Terrible for
insurance
> >> companies, drug companies, HMOs, etc, that is.
> >
> >How would we spend "less on health care" ? Instead of paying for health
> >insurance we would pay *AT LEAST* that much in additional taxes.
> >
> >
> Why is it, then, that every western European nation, plus Canada and
Japan,
> spend less per capita on health care than the US yet still cover
everybody?
They don't. If you're Canadian and the Doctor discovers a cancerous tumor
that needs immediate treatment, they have to come to the USA to get it, in
Canada, with a set health budget, you wait six months to a year for
treatment, until the government can "afford" to pay for your "free"
treatment. If you happen to die first great, less money they have to spend.
You really are stupid aren't you?
#5405
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
news:bqitfk$of5$4@puck.cc.emory.edu...
> In article <3FCCEA4D.9F9665EC@greg.greg>, Greg <greg@greg.greg> wrote:
> >Lloyd Parker wrote:
> >
> >> Yeah, it'd be terrible if everybody were covered and we spent less on
> health
> >> care, as Europe, Canada, and Japan do, wouldn't it? Terrible for
insurance
> >> companies, drug companies, HMOs, etc, that is.
> >
> >Many HMOs are not even for profit.
>
> Huh? They're all run by insurance companies, and they sure are for
profit.
> In most states, even Blue Cross is now for profit.
>
>
> > And let's attack drug companies and put them
> >out of business.
>
> 1. They earn a greater return on capital than any other industry.
> 2. They take drugs discovered and tested with tax-funded research and make
> huge profits on them.
> 3. They do fine in other countries where they aren't allowed such
exorbitant
> profits.
>
>
> > After all we can all just invent our own miracle drugs,
>
> Most are -- most new drugs come out of government-funded university
research.
>
>
> >so who
> >needs pharmecutical companies? I'm sure you've contributed even more
useful
> drugs
> >than average given your superior chemistry background. Finally, having
the
> >government do as a monopoly what the private sector can do is socialism
you'd
> end
> >up spending far more under your socialism plan.
> >
> >>
> >>
> >> But why not a single-payer, like Canada then? You wouldn't have
national
> >> health care, just national health insurance.
> >
> >Huh? Even HillaryClintonCare was forecast to cost in double digit
TRILLIONS
> of
> >dollars.
>
> And what do you think we spend now on health care?
>
>
> > And yes, the Canada care system with its people fleeing to the US to get
> >needed healthcare would be an improvement in your alternate reality.
>
> Totally false.
Totally true, reported many times in the news. Stop lying Parker, it doesn't
work, we are all smarter than you, even my dog.
>
>
> > Trouble is
> >where would the US people go that needed urgent care with the Canada
system
> here?
> >
> Why are Canadian retirees moving back to Canada? Why are American seniors
> going their for their medicine?
Big difference between buying medicine and receiving medical treatment, but
you knew that, you just enjoy lying.
#5406
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:bqitfk$of5$4@puck.cc.emory.edu...
> In article <3FCCEA4D.9F9665EC@greg.greg>, Greg <greg@greg.greg> wrote:
> >Lloyd Parker wrote:
> >
> >> Yeah, it'd be terrible if everybody were covered and we spent less on
> health
> >> care, as Europe, Canada, and Japan do, wouldn't it? Terrible for
insurance
> >> companies, drug companies, HMOs, etc, that is.
> >
> >Many HMOs are not even for profit.
>
> Huh? They're all run by insurance companies, and they sure are for
profit.
> In most states, even Blue Cross is now for profit.
>
>
> > And let's attack drug companies and put them
> >out of business.
>
> 1. They earn a greater return on capital than any other industry.
> 2. They take drugs discovered and tested with tax-funded research and make
> huge profits on them.
> 3. They do fine in other countries where they aren't allowed such
exorbitant
> profits.
>
>
> > After all we can all just invent our own miracle drugs,
>
> Most are -- most new drugs come out of government-funded university
research.
>
>
> >so who
> >needs pharmecutical companies? I'm sure you've contributed even more
useful
> drugs
> >than average given your superior chemistry background. Finally, having
the
> >government do as a monopoly what the private sector can do is socialism
you'd
> end
> >up spending far more under your socialism plan.
> >
> >>
> >>
> >> But why not a single-payer, like Canada then? You wouldn't have
national
> >> health care, just national health insurance.
> >
> >Huh? Even HillaryClintonCare was forecast to cost in double digit
TRILLIONS
> of
> >dollars.
>
> And what do you think we spend now on health care?
>
>
> > And yes, the Canada care system with its people fleeing to the US to get
> >needed healthcare would be an improvement in your alternate reality.
>
> Totally false.
Totally true, reported many times in the news. Stop lying Parker, it doesn't
work, we are all smarter than you, even my dog.
>
>
> > Trouble is
> >where would the US people go that needed urgent care with the Canada
system
> here?
> >
> Why are Canadian retirees moving back to Canada? Why are American seniors
> going their for their medicine?
Big difference between buying medicine and receiving medical treatment, but
you knew that, you just enjoy lying.
#5407
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:bqitfk$of5$4@puck.cc.emory.edu...
> In article <3FCCEA4D.9F9665EC@greg.greg>, Greg <greg@greg.greg> wrote:
> >Lloyd Parker wrote:
> >
> >> Yeah, it'd be terrible if everybody were covered and we spent less on
> health
> >> care, as Europe, Canada, and Japan do, wouldn't it? Terrible for
insurance
> >> companies, drug companies, HMOs, etc, that is.
> >
> >Many HMOs are not even for profit.
>
> Huh? They're all run by insurance companies, and they sure are for
profit.
> In most states, even Blue Cross is now for profit.
>
>
> > And let's attack drug companies and put them
> >out of business.
>
> 1. They earn a greater return on capital than any other industry.
> 2. They take drugs discovered and tested with tax-funded research and make
> huge profits on them.
> 3. They do fine in other countries where they aren't allowed such
exorbitant
> profits.
>
>
> > After all we can all just invent our own miracle drugs,
>
> Most are -- most new drugs come out of government-funded university
research.
>
>
> >so who
> >needs pharmecutical companies? I'm sure you've contributed even more
useful
> drugs
> >than average given your superior chemistry background. Finally, having
the
> >government do as a monopoly what the private sector can do is socialism
you'd
> end
> >up spending far more under your socialism plan.
> >
> >>
> >>
> >> But why not a single-payer, like Canada then? You wouldn't have
national
> >> health care, just national health insurance.
> >
> >Huh? Even HillaryClintonCare was forecast to cost in double digit
TRILLIONS
> of
> >dollars.
>
> And what do you think we spend now on health care?
>
>
> > And yes, the Canada care system with its people fleeing to the US to get
> >needed healthcare would be an improvement in your alternate reality.
>
> Totally false.
Totally true, reported many times in the news. Stop lying Parker, it doesn't
work, we are all smarter than you, even my dog.
>
>
> > Trouble is
> >where would the US people go that needed urgent care with the Canada
system
> here?
> >
> Why are Canadian retirees moving back to Canada? Why are American seniors
> going their for their medicine?
Big difference between buying medicine and receiving medical treatment, but
you knew that, you just enjoy lying.
#5408
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
On Tue, 02 Dec 2003 14:33:43 -0500, Greg <greg@greg.greg> wrote:
>Again Lloyd, not true, except perhaps in your alternate reality, where (unnamed)
>people in this group are Taliban that stone women for learning to read and shoot
>as US troops . Hospitals may not turn people away for care by law.
Not so.
Hospitals must 'stabilize' emergency cases, but otherwise, they may
turn away those seeking aid.
--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"
>Again Lloyd, not true, except perhaps in your alternate reality, where (unnamed)
>people in this group are Taliban that stone women for learning to read and shoot
>as US troops . Hospitals may not turn people away for care by law.
Not so.
Hospitals must 'stabilize' emergency cases, but otherwise, they may
turn away those seeking aid.
--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"
#5409
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
On Tue, 02 Dec 2003 14:33:43 -0500, Greg <greg@greg.greg> wrote:
>Again Lloyd, not true, except perhaps in your alternate reality, where (unnamed)
>people in this group are Taliban that stone women for learning to read and shoot
>as US troops . Hospitals may not turn people away for care by law.
Not so.
Hospitals must 'stabilize' emergency cases, but otherwise, they may
turn away those seeking aid.
--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"
>Again Lloyd, not true, except perhaps in your alternate reality, where (unnamed)
>people in this group are Taliban that stone women for learning to read and shoot
>as US troops . Hospitals may not turn people away for care by law.
Not so.
Hospitals must 'stabilize' emergency cases, but otherwise, they may
turn away those seeking aid.
--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"
#5410
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
On Tue, 02 Dec 2003 14:33:43 -0500, Greg <greg@greg.greg> wrote:
>Again Lloyd, not true, except perhaps in your alternate reality, where (unnamed)
>people in this group are Taliban that stone women for learning to read and shoot
>as US troops . Hospitals may not turn people away for care by law.
Not so.
Hospitals must 'stabilize' emergency cases, but otherwise, they may
turn away those seeking aid.
--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"
>Again Lloyd, not true, except perhaps in your alternate reality, where (unnamed)
>people in this group are Taliban that stone women for learning to read and shoot
>as US troops . Hospitals may not turn people away for care by law.
Not so.
Hospitals must 'stabilize' emergency cases, but otherwise, they may
turn away those seeking aid.
--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"