Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
#6291
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
On Thu, 4 Dec 2003 19:41:18 -0500, "The Ancient One"
<onlytheone@thetopknows.com> wrote:
>I have a friend who went to the Doctor for a routine physical. The Doctor
>did not like whaat he saw on the treadmill test and checked him into the
>hospital, where he had a balloon angioplasty that same afternoon. How long
>would he have waited "on the list" in Canada for the same treatment,
>considering he was outwardly healthy and active. Would he have lived that
>long? How could he have been sure?
That would depend on the doctor, wouldn't it? If the doctor realized
that it was serious there's no reason why the angioplasty wouldn't
have been performed.
>I know if I need medical treatment I can get it, NOW, now later. To me, that
>is important.
Sure, if you can afford it. I can understand why you don't want to
mess with the system when you can afford to benefit from it.
>I really don't care how Canada does it, if you're happy great.
Then why are you running it down?
>I'm just against Lloyd and his cronies trying to change ours, which would
>stifle it, and lower the quaility of care for everyone, including Canadians.
It can't lower the quality of care for everyone, as some have
effectively no care at all.
--
Brandon Sommerville
remove ".gov" to e-mail
Definition of "Lottery":
Millions of stupid people contributing
to make one stupid person look smart.
<onlytheone@thetopknows.com> wrote:
>I have a friend who went to the Doctor for a routine physical. The Doctor
>did not like whaat he saw on the treadmill test and checked him into the
>hospital, where he had a balloon angioplasty that same afternoon. How long
>would he have waited "on the list" in Canada for the same treatment,
>considering he was outwardly healthy and active. Would he have lived that
>long? How could he have been sure?
That would depend on the doctor, wouldn't it? If the doctor realized
that it was serious there's no reason why the angioplasty wouldn't
have been performed.
>I know if I need medical treatment I can get it, NOW, now later. To me, that
>is important.
Sure, if you can afford it. I can understand why you don't want to
mess with the system when you can afford to benefit from it.
>I really don't care how Canada does it, if you're happy great.
Then why are you running it down?
>I'm just against Lloyd and his cronies trying to change ours, which would
>stifle it, and lower the quaility of care for everyone, including Canadians.
It can't lower the quality of care for everyone, as some have
effectively no care at all.
--
Brandon Sommerville
remove ".gov" to e-mail
Definition of "Lottery":
Millions of stupid people contributing
to make one stupid person look smart.
#6292
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
On Thu, 4 Dec 2003 19:41:18 -0500, "The Ancient One"
<onlytheone@thetopknows.com> wrote:
>I have a friend who went to the Doctor for a routine physical. The Doctor
>did not like whaat he saw on the treadmill test and checked him into the
>hospital, where he had a balloon angioplasty that same afternoon. How long
>would he have waited "on the list" in Canada for the same treatment,
>considering he was outwardly healthy and active. Would he have lived that
>long? How could he have been sure?
That would depend on the doctor, wouldn't it? If the doctor realized
that it was serious there's no reason why the angioplasty wouldn't
have been performed.
>I know if I need medical treatment I can get it, NOW, now later. To me, that
>is important.
Sure, if you can afford it. I can understand why you don't want to
mess with the system when you can afford to benefit from it.
>I really don't care how Canada does it, if you're happy great.
Then why are you running it down?
>I'm just against Lloyd and his cronies trying to change ours, which would
>stifle it, and lower the quaility of care for everyone, including Canadians.
It can't lower the quality of care for everyone, as some have
effectively no care at all.
--
Brandon Sommerville
remove ".gov" to e-mail
Definition of "Lottery":
Millions of stupid people contributing
to make one stupid person look smart.
<onlytheone@thetopknows.com> wrote:
>I have a friend who went to the Doctor for a routine physical. The Doctor
>did not like whaat he saw on the treadmill test and checked him into the
>hospital, where he had a balloon angioplasty that same afternoon. How long
>would he have waited "on the list" in Canada for the same treatment,
>considering he was outwardly healthy and active. Would he have lived that
>long? How could he have been sure?
That would depend on the doctor, wouldn't it? If the doctor realized
that it was serious there's no reason why the angioplasty wouldn't
have been performed.
>I know if I need medical treatment I can get it, NOW, now later. To me, that
>is important.
Sure, if you can afford it. I can understand why you don't want to
mess with the system when you can afford to benefit from it.
>I really don't care how Canada does it, if you're happy great.
Then why are you running it down?
>I'm just against Lloyd and his cronies trying to change ours, which would
>stifle it, and lower the quaility of care for everyone, including Canadians.
It can't lower the quality of care for everyone, as some have
effectively no care at all.
--
Brandon Sommerville
remove ".gov" to e-mail
Definition of "Lottery":
Millions of stupid people contributing
to make one stupid person look smart.
#6293
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety canbe misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
On Thu, 04 Dec 2003 17:47:34 -0700, Bill Funk <bfunk33@pipping.com>
wrote:
>On Thu, 04 Dec 2003 14:25:55 GMT, Brandon Sommerville
><grimrod@mindless.com.gov> wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 03 Dec 2003 17:06:25 -0700, Bill Funk <bfunk33@pipping.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Wed, 03 Dec 2003 18:21:10 GMT, Brandon Sommerville
>>><grimrod@mindless.com.gov> wrote:
>>>
>>>>This confuses me greatly. If two men or two women want to be joined
>>>>as a family in a marriage, how does it detract from your marriage?
>>>
>>>It doesn't.
>>>
>>>Marriage, in our culture (Judeo/Christian) has been historically
>>>defined by the religious society, and then codified by the
>>>governments.
>>
>>So change the codification slightly. Instead of specifying that it's
>>a man and woman specify that it's two people. Problem solved, no
>>other laws need to be changed.
>
>I've been saying just that that.
Then we agree.
>>As far as the religious society, it's got a few issues of it's own to
>>deal with before passing judgement on anyone else. Covering up
>>pedophiles while condemning gay marriage seems a little hypocritical
>>to me, don't you think?
>
>Let's not confuse some Catholic churches with the whole of religious
>society.
They're the most prominent voice against it right now.
>>>This is why the idea of gay marriage rankles so much.
>>
>>That's not an explanation of why it rankles, it's an explanation of
>>what it is.
>
>Ok, I have a problem with unreferrenced pronouns.
>What is the "it" here?
>Marriage? Gay marriage? The idea of gay marriage?
>The rankling?
That's not an explanation of why gay marriage rankles, it's an
explanation of what gay marriage is.
--
Brandon Sommerville
remove ".gov" to e-mail
Definition of "Lottery":
Millions of stupid people contributing
to make one stupid person look smart.
wrote:
>On Thu, 04 Dec 2003 14:25:55 GMT, Brandon Sommerville
><grimrod@mindless.com.gov> wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 03 Dec 2003 17:06:25 -0700, Bill Funk <bfunk33@pipping.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Wed, 03 Dec 2003 18:21:10 GMT, Brandon Sommerville
>>><grimrod@mindless.com.gov> wrote:
>>>
>>>>This confuses me greatly. If two men or two women want to be joined
>>>>as a family in a marriage, how does it detract from your marriage?
>>>
>>>It doesn't.
>>>
>>>Marriage, in our culture (Judeo/Christian) has been historically
>>>defined by the religious society, and then codified by the
>>>governments.
>>
>>So change the codification slightly. Instead of specifying that it's
>>a man and woman specify that it's two people. Problem solved, no
>>other laws need to be changed.
>
>I've been saying just that that.
Then we agree.
>>As far as the religious society, it's got a few issues of it's own to
>>deal with before passing judgement on anyone else. Covering up
>>pedophiles while condemning gay marriage seems a little hypocritical
>>to me, don't you think?
>
>Let's not confuse some Catholic churches with the whole of religious
>society.
They're the most prominent voice against it right now.
>>>This is why the idea of gay marriage rankles so much.
>>
>>That's not an explanation of why it rankles, it's an explanation of
>>what it is.
>
>Ok, I have a problem with unreferrenced pronouns.
>What is the "it" here?
>Marriage? Gay marriage? The idea of gay marriage?
>The rankling?
That's not an explanation of why gay marriage rankles, it's an
explanation of what gay marriage is.
--
Brandon Sommerville
remove ".gov" to e-mail
Definition of "Lottery":
Millions of stupid people contributing
to make one stupid person look smart.
#6294
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety canbe misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
On Thu, 04 Dec 2003 17:47:34 -0700, Bill Funk <bfunk33@pipping.com>
wrote:
>On Thu, 04 Dec 2003 14:25:55 GMT, Brandon Sommerville
><grimrod@mindless.com.gov> wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 03 Dec 2003 17:06:25 -0700, Bill Funk <bfunk33@pipping.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Wed, 03 Dec 2003 18:21:10 GMT, Brandon Sommerville
>>><grimrod@mindless.com.gov> wrote:
>>>
>>>>This confuses me greatly. If two men or two women want to be joined
>>>>as a family in a marriage, how does it detract from your marriage?
>>>
>>>It doesn't.
>>>
>>>Marriage, in our culture (Judeo/Christian) has been historically
>>>defined by the religious society, and then codified by the
>>>governments.
>>
>>So change the codification slightly. Instead of specifying that it's
>>a man and woman specify that it's two people. Problem solved, no
>>other laws need to be changed.
>
>I've been saying just that that.
Then we agree.
>>As far as the religious society, it's got a few issues of it's own to
>>deal with before passing judgement on anyone else. Covering up
>>pedophiles while condemning gay marriage seems a little hypocritical
>>to me, don't you think?
>
>Let's not confuse some Catholic churches with the whole of religious
>society.
They're the most prominent voice against it right now.
>>>This is why the idea of gay marriage rankles so much.
>>
>>That's not an explanation of why it rankles, it's an explanation of
>>what it is.
>
>Ok, I have a problem with unreferrenced pronouns.
>What is the "it" here?
>Marriage? Gay marriage? The idea of gay marriage?
>The rankling?
That's not an explanation of why gay marriage rankles, it's an
explanation of what gay marriage is.
--
Brandon Sommerville
remove ".gov" to e-mail
Definition of "Lottery":
Millions of stupid people contributing
to make one stupid person look smart.
wrote:
>On Thu, 04 Dec 2003 14:25:55 GMT, Brandon Sommerville
><grimrod@mindless.com.gov> wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 03 Dec 2003 17:06:25 -0700, Bill Funk <bfunk33@pipping.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Wed, 03 Dec 2003 18:21:10 GMT, Brandon Sommerville
>>><grimrod@mindless.com.gov> wrote:
>>>
>>>>This confuses me greatly. If two men or two women want to be joined
>>>>as a family in a marriage, how does it detract from your marriage?
>>>
>>>It doesn't.
>>>
>>>Marriage, in our culture (Judeo/Christian) has been historically
>>>defined by the religious society, and then codified by the
>>>governments.
>>
>>So change the codification slightly. Instead of specifying that it's
>>a man and woman specify that it's two people. Problem solved, no
>>other laws need to be changed.
>
>I've been saying just that that.
Then we agree.
>>As far as the religious society, it's got a few issues of it's own to
>>deal with before passing judgement on anyone else. Covering up
>>pedophiles while condemning gay marriage seems a little hypocritical
>>to me, don't you think?
>
>Let's not confuse some Catholic churches with the whole of religious
>society.
They're the most prominent voice against it right now.
>>>This is why the idea of gay marriage rankles so much.
>>
>>That's not an explanation of why it rankles, it's an explanation of
>>what it is.
>
>Ok, I have a problem with unreferrenced pronouns.
>What is the "it" here?
>Marriage? Gay marriage? The idea of gay marriage?
>The rankling?
That's not an explanation of why gay marriage rankles, it's an
explanation of what gay marriage is.
--
Brandon Sommerville
remove ".gov" to e-mail
Definition of "Lottery":
Millions of stupid people contributing
to make one stupid person look smart.
#6295
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety canbe misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
On Thu, 04 Dec 2003 17:47:34 -0700, Bill Funk <bfunk33@pipping.com>
wrote:
>On Thu, 04 Dec 2003 14:25:55 GMT, Brandon Sommerville
><grimrod@mindless.com.gov> wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 03 Dec 2003 17:06:25 -0700, Bill Funk <bfunk33@pipping.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Wed, 03 Dec 2003 18:21:10 GMT, Brandon Sommerville
>>><grimrod@mindless.com.gov> wrote:
>>>
>>>>This confuses me greatly. If two men or two women want to be joined
>>>>as a family in a marriage, how does it detract from your marriage?
>>>
>>>It doesn't.
>>>
>>>Marriage, in our culture (Judeo/Christian) has been historically
>>>defined by the religious society, and then codified by the
>>>governments.
>>
>>So change the codification slightly. Instead of specifying that it's
>>a man and woman specify that it's two people. Problem solved, no
>>other laws need to be changed.
>
>I've been saying just that that.
Then we agree.
>>As far as the religious society, it's got a few issues of it's own to
>>deal with before passing judgement on anyone else. Covering up
>>pedophiles while condemning gay marriage seems a little hypocritical
>>to me, don't you think?
>
>Let's not confuse some Catholic churches with the whole of religious
>society.
They're the most prominent voice against it right now.
>>>This is why the idea of gay marriage rankles so much.
>>
>>That's not an explanation of why it rankles, it's an explanation of
>>what it is.
>
>Ok, I have a problem with unreferrenced pronouns.
>What is the "it" here?
>Marriage? Gay marriage? The idea of gay marriage?
>The rankling?
That's not an explanation of why gay marriage rankles, it's an
explanation of what gay marriage is.
--
Brandon Sommerville
remove ".gov" to e-mail
Definition of "Lottery":
Millions of stupid people contributing
to make one stupid person look smart.
wrote:
>On Thu, 04 Dec 2003 14:25:55 GMT, Brandon Sommerville
><grimrod@mindless.com.gov> wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 03 Dec 2003 17:06:25 -0700, Bill Funk <bfunk33@pipping.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Wed, 03 Dec 2003 18:21:10 GMT, Brandon Sommerville
>>><grimrod@mindless.com.gov> wrote:
>>>
>>>>This confuses me greatly. If two men or two women want to be joined
>>>>as a family in a marriage, how does it detract from your marriage?
>>>
>>>It doesn't.
>>>
>>>Marriage, in our culture (Judeo/Christian) has been historically
>>>defined by the religious society, and then codified by the
>>>governments.
>>
>>So change the codification slightly. Instead of specifying that it's
>>a man and woman specify that it's two people. Problem solved, no
>>other laws need to be changed.
>
>I've been saying just that that.
Then we agree.
>>As far as the religious society, it's got a few issues of it's own to
>>deal with before passing judgement on anyone else. Covering up
>>pedophiles while condemning gay marriage seems a little hypocritical
>>to me, don't you think?
>
>Let's not confuse some Catholic churches with the whole of religious
>society.
They're the most prominent voice against it right now.
>>>This is why the idea of gay marriage rankles so much.
>>
>>That's not an explanation of why it rankles, it's an explanation of
>>what it is.
>
>Ok, I have a problem with unreferrenced pronouns.
>What is the "it" here?
>Marriage? Gay marriage? The idea of gay marriage?
>The rankling?
That's not an explanation of why gay marriage rankles, it's an
explanation of what gay marriage is.
--
Brandon Sommerville
remove ".gov" to e-mail
Definition of "Lottery":
Millions of stupid people contributing
to make one stupid person look smart.
#6296
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safetycanbe misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
Lloyd Parker wrote:
> 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.
Kaiser Foundation Health Plan Inc N California NOT-FOR-PROFIT HMO
Kaiser Foundation Health Plan Inc S California NOT-FOR-PROFIT HMO
Blue Shield of CA Access NOT-FOR-PROFIT HMO
HMO Blue Boston, Mass NOT-FOR-PROFIT HMO
HMO Illinois NOT-FOR-PROFIT HMO
Tennessee Health Care Network NOT-FOR-PROFIT HMO
HIP Health Plan of NY NOT-FOR-PROFIT HMO
Tufts Health Plan NOT-FOR-PROFIT HMO
HarvardPilgrim Health Care NOT-FOR-PROFIT HMO
Triple S San Juan NOT-FOR-PROFIT HMO
Blue Care Network of Michigan NOT-FOR-PROFIT HMO
Blue Choice Rochester NY NOT-FOR-PROFIT HMO
>
> > And let's attack drug companies and put them
> >out of business.
>
> 1. They earn a greater return on capital than any other industry.
Wrong. What was your source for this factoid?
> 2. They take drugs discovered and tested with tax-funded research and make
> huge profits on them.
Some drugs are helped with tax funded research, some aren't. Nearly all research
doesn't yield a dime of profits. One successful drug in a career makes a
successful career. Without the hope of profits there is no incentive to spend
billions of capital in research.
>
> 3. They do fine in other countries where they aren't allowed such exorbitant
> profits.
That's because drugs have gigantice fixed costs, but little variable costs.
That's why generics can be made cheaply AFTER the drug is invented.
>
>
> > After all we can all just invent our own miracle drugs,
>
> Most are -- most new drugs come out of government-funded university research.
Where did you get that factoid? Some drugs are funded with government funds where
the risk is too high to justify capital spending, some aren't. The government
spends money on university research on tons of things, not just 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.
Well, haven't you?
>
> >
> >>
> >>
> >> 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.
True.
>
>
> > 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?
Any number of reasons. Why do people like retiring where they are from? You
certainly presented no evidence
> Why are American seniors
> going their for their medicine?
To bypass the US market and illegally import drugs. .
#6297
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safetycanbe misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
Lloyd Parker wrote:
> 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.
Kaiser Foundation Health Plan Inc N California NOT-FOR-PROFIT HMO
Kaiser Foundation Health Plan Inc S California NOT-FOR-PROFIT HMO
Blue Shield of CA Access NOT-FOR-PROFIT HMO
HMO Blue Boston, Mass NOT-FOR-PROFIT HMO
HMO Illinois NOT-FOR-PROFIT HMO
Tennessee Health Care Network NOT-FOR-PROFIT HMO
HIP Health Plan of NY NOT-FOR-PROFIT HMO
Tufts Health Plan NOT-FOR-PROFIT HMO
HarvardPilgrim Health Care NOT-FOR-PROFIT HMO
Triple S San Juan NOT-FOR-PROFIT HMO
Blue Care Network of Michigan NOT-FOR-PROFIT HMO
Blue Choice Rochester NY NOT-FOR-PROFIT HMO
>
> > And let's attack drug companies and put them
> >out of business.
>
> 1. They earn a greater return on capital than any other industry.
Wrong. What was your source for this factoid?
> 2. They take drugs discovered and tested with tax-funded research and make
> huge profits on them.
Some drugs are helped with tax funded research, some aren't. Nearly all research
doesn't yield a dime of profits. One successful drug in a career makes a
successful career. Without the hope of profits there is no incentive to spend
billions of capital in research.
>
> 3. They do fine in other countries where they aren't allowed such exorbitant
> profits.
That's because drugs have gigantice fixed costs, but little variable costs.
That's why generics can be made cheaply AFTER the drug is invented.
>
>
> > After all we can all just invent our own miracle drugs,
>
> Most are -- most new drugs come out of government-funded university research.
Where did you get that factoid? Some drugs are funded with government funds where
the risk is too high to justify capital spending, some aren't. The government
spends money on university research on tons of things, not just 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.
Well, haven't you?
>
> >
> >>
> >>
> >> 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.
True.
>
>
> > 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?
Any number of reasons. Why do people like retiring where they are from? You
certainly presented no evidence
> Why are American seniors
> going their for their medicine?
To bypass the US market and illegally import drugs. .
#6298
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safetycanbe misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
Lloyd Parker wrote:
> 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.
Kaiser Foundation Health Plan Inc N California NOT-FOR-PROFIT HMO
Kaiser Foundation Health Plan Inc S California NOT-FOR-PROFIT HMO
Blue Shield of CA Access NOT-FOR-PROFIT HMO
HMO Blue Boston, Mass NOT-FOR-PROFIT HMO
HMO Illinois NOT-FOR-PROFIT HMO
Tennessee Health Care Network NOT-FOR-PROFIT HMO
HIP Health Plan of NY NOT-FOR-PROFIT HMO
Tufts Health Plan NOT-FOR-PROFIT HMO
HarvardPilgrim Health Care NOT-FOR-PROFIT HMO
Triple S San Juan NOT-FOR-PROFIT HMO
Blue Care Network of Michigan NOT-FOR-PROFIT HMO
Blue Choice Rochester NY NOT-FOR-PROFIT HMO
>
> > And let's attack drug companies and put them
> >out of business.
>
> 1. They earn a greater return on capital than any other industry.
Wrong. What was your source for this factoid?
> 2. They take drugs discovered and tested with tax-funded research and make
> huge profits on them.
Some drugs are helped with tax funded research, some aren't. Nearly all research
doesn't yield a dime of profits. One successful drug in a career makes a
successful career. Without the hope of profits there is no incentive to spend
billions of capital in research.
>
> 3. They do fine in other countries where they aren't allowed such exorbitant
> profits.
That's because drugs have gigantice fixed costs, but little variable costs.
That's why generics can be made cheaply AFTER the drug is invented.
>
>
> > After all we can all just invent our own miracle drugs,
>
> Most are -- most new drugs come out of government-funded university research.
Where did you get that factoid? Some drugs are funded with government funds where
the risk is too high to justify capital spending, some aren't. The government
spends money on university research on tons of things, not just 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.
Well, haven't you?
>
> >
> >>
> >>
> >> 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.
True.
>
>
> > 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?
Any number of reasons. Why do people like retiring where they are from? You
certainly presented no evidence
> Why are American seniors
> going their for their medicine?
To bypass the US market and illegally import drugs. .
#6299
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
"Brandon Sommerville" <grimrod@mindless.com.gov> wrote in message
news:a4d8007431c8f5016340d8338b40feaa@news.teranew s.com...
> On Thu, 4 Dec 2003 19:41:18 -0500, "The Ancient One"
> <onlytheone@thetopknows.com> wrote:
>
> >I have a friend who went to the Doctor for a routine physical. The Doctor
> >did not like whaat he saw on the treadmill test and checked him into the
> >hospital, where he had a balloon angioplasty that same afternoon. How
long
> >would he have waited "on the list" in Canada for the same treatment,
> >considering he was outwardly healthy and active. Would he have lived that
> >long? How could he have been sure?
>
> That would depend on the doctor, wouldn't it? If the doctor realized
> that it was serious there's no reason why the angioplasty wouldn't
> have been performed.
And yet, again, bus loads of people come to the US from Canada to have
procedures like this performed at their own expense raher than wait 6 months
for it in Canada. Your claims do not explain why these people are not
receiving the free care you boast of.
>
> >I know if I need medical treatment I can get it, NOW, now later. To me,
that
> >is important.
>
> Sure, if you can afford it. I can understand why you don't want to
> mess with the system when you can afford to benefit from it.
Who can afford it. You pay for your health care with every paycheck through
taxes, I pay insurance. If I could not afford insurance there are plenty of
options available that would still let me get treated immediately. The only
true difference is I will never be put on hold for a procedure because there
is not enough money in the budget.
>
> >I really don't care how Canada does it, if you're happy great.
>
> Then why are you running it down?
Because it is inferior, IMHO, to ours, and Liberals like Lloyd refuse to see
it.
>
> >I'm just against Lloyd and his cronies trying to change ours, which would
> >stifle it, and lower the quaility of care for everyone, including
Canadians.
>
> It can't lower the quality of care for everyone, as some have
> effectively no care at all.
Everyone has care available in the US if they need it.
> Definition of "Lottery":
> Millions of stupid people contributing
> to make one stupid person look smart.
#6300
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
"Brandon Sommerville" <grimrod@mindless.com.gov> wrote in message
news:a4d8007431c8f5016340d8338b40feaa@news.teranew s.com...
> On Thu, 4 Dec 2003 19:41:18 -0500, "The Ancient One"
> <onlytheone@thetopknows.com> wrote:
>
> >I have a friend who went to the Doctor for a routine physical. The Doctor
> >did not like whaat he saw on the treadmill test and checked him into the
> >hospital, where he had a balloon angioplasty that same afternoon. How
long
> >would he have waited "on the list" in Canada for the same treatment,
> >considering he was outwardly healthy and active. Would he have lived that
> >long? How could he have been sure?
>
> That would depend on the doctor, wouldn't it? If the doctor realized
> that it was serious there's no reason why the angioplasty wouldn't
> have been performed.
And yet, again, bus loads of people come to the US from Canada to have
procedures like this performed at their own expense raher than wait 6 months
for it in Canada. Your claims do not explain why these people are not
receiving the free care you boast of.
>
> >I know if I need medical treatment I can get it, NOW, now later. To me,
that
> >is important.
>
> Sure, if you can afford it. I can understand why you don't want to
> mess with the system when you can afford to benefit from it.
Who can afford it. You pay for your health care with every paycheck through
taxes, I pay insurance. If I could not afford insurance there are plenty of
options available that would still let me get treated immediately. The only
true difference is I will never be put on hold for a procedure because there
is not enough money in the budget.
>
> >I really don't care how Canada does it, if you're happy great.
>
> Then why are you running it down?
Because it is inferior, IMHO, to ours, and Liberals like Lloyd refuse to see
it.
>
> >I'm just against Lloyd and his cronies trying to change ours, which would
> >stifle it, and lower the quaility of care for everyone, including
Canadians.
>
> It can't lower the quality of care for everyone, as some have
> effectively no care at all.
Everyone has care available in the US if they need it.
> Definition of "Lottery":
> Millions of stupid people contributing
> to make one stupid person look smart.