Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
#6431
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study aboutsafetycanbemisinterpreted by SUV drivers)
"Daniel J. Stern" wrote:
>
> Another comparison of homosexuals to animal-----ers by the self-proclaimed
> non-homophobe.
>
> Surprise, surprise.
>
> DS
>
Ya know Daniel - you're pretty good in your technical areas, but when
you're on the opposite side of someone in a political discussion, you
become very much like Lloyd, i.e., you can't argue the points or
excercise logic and you throw in diversions.
The point is simple and clear - you want to re-define the word
"marriage" to excercise what you feel are your rights. So why can't
others do the same. You want to exclude the "opposite ---" part of the
definition. Someone else might want to exlude the "human beings" or the
"mutual consent" part of the difinition. No doubt we could find some
nature worshippers who would want to be allowed to marry a tree. The
problem with all of those cases is that they degrade and make
meaningless the concept of marriage for several reasons. All of them
would be very destructive - and I don't expect you to agree with that.
Bill Putney
(to reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
address with "x")
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
#6432
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study aboutsafetycanbemisinterpreted by SUV drivers)
"Daniel J. Stern" wrote:
>
> Another comparison of homosexuals to animal-----ers by the self-proclaimed
> non-homophobe.
>
> Surprise, surprise.
>
> DS
>
Ya know Daniel - you're pretty good in your technical areas, but when
you're on the opposite side of someone in a political discussion, you
become very much like Lloyd, i.e., you can't argue the points or
excercise logic and you throw in diversions.
The point is simple and clear - you want to re-define the word
"marriage" to excercise what you feel are your rights. So why can't
others do the same. You want to exclude the "opposite ---" part of the
definition. Someone else might want to exlude the "human beings" or the
"mutual consent" part of the difinition. No doubt we could find some
nature worshippers who would want to be allowed to marry a tree. The
problem with all of those cases is that they degrade and make
meaningless the concept of marriage for several reasons. All of them
would be very destructive - and I don't expect you to agree with that.
Bill Putney
(to reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
address with "x")
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
#6433
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study aboutsafetycanbemisinterpreted by SUV drivers)
"Daniel J. Stern" wrote:
>
> Another comparison of homosexuals to animal-----ers by the self-proclaimed
> non-homophobe.
>
> Surprise, surprise.
>
> DS
>
Ya know Daniel - you're pretty good in your technical areas, but when
you're on the opposite side of someone in a political discussion, you
become very much like Lloyd, i.e., you can't argue the points or
excercise logic and you throw in diversions.
The point is simple and clear - you want to re-define the word
"marriage" to excercise what you feel are your rights. So why can't
others do the same. You want to exclude the "opposite ---" part of the
definition. Someone else might want to exlude the "human beings" or the
"mutual consent" part of the difinition. No doubt we could find some
nature worshippers who would want to be allowed to marry a tree. The
problem with all of those cases is that they degrade and make
meaningless the concept of marriage for several reasons. All of them
would be very destructive - and I don't expect you to agree with that.
Bill Putney
(to reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
address with "x")
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
#6434
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safetycanbe misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
In article <3FCFEDBC.EFE638D3@greg.greg>, Greg <greg@greg.greg> wrote:
>
>
>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?
>
Fortune magazine.
>> 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.
Drug companies make plenty of profits. And they spend more on advertising and
lobbying than 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.
So US citizens should subsidize this?
>
>>
>>
>> > 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.
Sorry, it's not. Check out the Consumer Reports article.
>
>>
>>
>> > 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. .
>
And why do they do this? Just for the thrill?
>
>
>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?
>
Fortune magazine.
>> 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.
Drug companies make plenty of profits. And they spend more on advertising and
lobbying than 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.
So US citizens should subsidize this?
>
>>
>>
>> > 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.
Sorry, it's not. Check out the Consumer Reports article.
>
>>
>>
>> > 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. .
>
And why do they do this? Just for the thrill?
#6435
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safetycanbe misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
In article <3FCFEDBC.EFE638D3@greg.greg>, Greg <greg@greg.greg> wrote:
>
>
>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?
>
Fortune magazine.
>> 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.
Drug companies make plenty of profits. And they spend more on advertising and
lobbying than 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.
So US citizens should subsidize this?
>
>>
>>
>> > 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.
Sorry, it's not. Check out the Consumer Reports article.
>
>>
>>
>> > 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. .
>
And why do they do this? Just for the thrill?
>
>
>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?
>
Fortune magazine.
>> 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.
Drug companies make plenty of profits. And they spend more on advertising and
lobbying than 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.
So US citizens should subsidize this?
>
>>
>>
>> > 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.
Sorry, it's not. Check out the Consumer Reports article.
>
>>
>>
>> > 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. .
>
And why do they do this? Just for the thrill?
#6436
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safetycanbe misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
In article <3FCFEDBC.EFE638D3@greg.greg>, Greg <greg@greg.greg> wrote:
>
>
>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?
>
Fortune magazine.
>> 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.
Drug companies make plenty of profits. And they spend more on advertising and
lobbying than 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.
So US citizens should subsidize this?
>
>>
>>
>> > 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.
Sorry, it's not. Check out the Consumer Reports article.
>
>>
>>
>> > 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. .
>
And why do they do this? Just for the thrill?
>
>
>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?
>
Fortune magazine.
>> 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.
Drug companies make plenty of profits. And they spend more on advertising and
lobbying than 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.
So US citizens should subsidize this?
>
>>
>>
>> > 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.
Sorry, it's not. Check out the Consumer Reports article.
>
>>
>>
>> > 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. .
>
And why do they do this? Just for the thrill?
#6437
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
In article <vsvrp5idlfb350@corp.supernews.com>,
"The Ancient One" <onlytheone@thetopknows.com> wrote:
>
>"Brandon Sommerville" <grimrod@mindless.com.gov> wrote in message
>news:a4d8007431c8f5016340d8338b40feaa@news.terane ws.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.
You are lying.
>Your claims do not explain why these people are not
>receiving the free care you boast of.
Because you're quoting an urban legend.
>
>>
>> >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.
A huge % have no insurance.
>If I could not afford insurance there are plenty of
>options available that would still let me get treated immediately.
Spoken like someone who's never been poor.
>The only
>true difference is I will never be put on hold for a procedure because there
>is not enough money in the budget.
You would if there's not enough money in your pocket.
>
>>
>> >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.
Prove it. By all data, it's superior -- life expectancy, infant mortality,
etc. And it costs less.
>
>>
>> >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.
Total, flat-out LIE.
>
>> Definition of "Lottery":
>> Millions of stupid people contributing
>> to make one stupid person look smart.
>
>
"The Ancient One" <onlytheone@thetopknows.com> wrote:
>
>"Brandon Sommerville" <grimrod@mindless.com.gov> wrote in message
>news:a4d8007431c8f5016340d8338b40feaa@news.terane ws.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.
You are lying.
>Your claims do not explain why these people are not
>receiving the free care you boast of.
Because you're quoting an urban legend.
>
>>
>> >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.
A huge % have no insurance.
>If I could not afford insurance there are plenty of
>options available that would still let me get treated immediately.
Spoken like someone who's never been poor.
>The only
>true difference is I will never be put on hold for a procedure because there
>is not enough money in the budget.
You would if there's not enough money in your pocket.
>
>>
>> >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.
Prove it. By all data, it's superior -- life expectancy, infant mortality,
etc. And it costs less.
>
>>
>> >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.
Total, flat-out LIE.
>
>> Definition of "Lottery":
>> Millions of stupid people contributing
>> to make one stupid person look smart.
>
>
#6438
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
In article <vsvrp5idlfb350@corp.supernews.com>,
"The Ancient One" <onlytheone@thetopknows.com> wrote:
>
>"Brandon Sommerville" <grimrod@mindless.com.gov> wrote in message
>news:a4d8007431c8f5016340d8338b40feaa@news.terane ws.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.
You are lying.
>Your claims do not explain why these people are not
>receiving the free care you boast of.
Because you're quoting an urban legend.
>
>>
>> >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.
A huge % have no insurance.
>If I could not afford insurance there are plenty of
>options available that would still let me get treated immediately.
Spoken like someone who's never been poor.
>The only
>true difference is I will never be put on hold for a procedure because there
>is not enough money in the budget.
You would if there's not enough money in your pocket.
>
>>
>> >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.
Prove it. By all data, it's superior -- life expectancy, infant mortality,
etc. And it costs less.
>
>>
>> >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.
Total, flat-out LIE.
>
>> Definition of "Lottery":
>> Millions of stupid people contributing
>> to make one stupid person look smart.
>
>
"The Ancient One" <onlytheone@thetopknows.com> wrote:
>
>"Brandon Sommerville" <grimrod@mindless.com.gov> wrote in message
>news:a4d8007431c8f5016340d8338b40feaa@news.terane ws.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.
You are lying.
>Your claims do not explain why these people are not
>receiving the free care you boast of.
Because you're quoting an urban legend.
>
>>
>> >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.
A huge % have no insurance.
>If I could not afford insurance there are plenty of
>options available that would still let me get treated immediately.
Spoken like someone who's never been poor.
>The only
>true difference is I will never be put on hold for a procedure because there
>is not enough money in the budget.
You would if there's not enough money in your pocket.
>
>>
>> >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.
Prove it. By all data, it's superior -- life expectancy, infant mortality,
etc. And it costs less.
>
>>
>> >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.
Total, flat-out LIE.
>
>> Definition of "Lottery":
>> Millions of stupid people contributing
>> to make one stupid person look smart.
>
>
#6439
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
In article <vsvrp5idlfb350@corp.supernews.com>,
"The Ancient One" <onlytheone@thetopknows.com> wrote:
>
>"Brandon Sommerville" <grimrod@mindless.com.gov> wrote in message
>news:a4d8007431c8f5016340d8338b40feaa@news.terane ws.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.
You are lying.
>Your claims do not explain why these people are not
>receiving the free care you boast of.
Because you're quoting an urban legend.
>
>>
>> >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.
A huge % have no insurance.
>If I could not afford insurance there are plenty of
>options available that would still let me get treated immediately.
Spoken like someone who's never been poor.
>The only
>true difference is I will never be put on hold for a procedure because there
>is not enough money in the budget.
You would if there's not enough money in your pocket.
>
>>
>> >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.
Prove it. By all data, it's superior -- life expectancy, infant mortality,
etc. And it costs less.
>
>>
>> >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.
Total, flat-out LIE.
>
>> Definition of "Lottery":
>> Millions of stupid people contributing
>> to make one stupid person look smart.
>
>
"The Ancient One" <onlytheone@thetopknows.com> wrote:
>
>"Brandon Sommerville" <grimrod@mindless.com.gov> wrote in message
>news:a4d8007431c8f5016340d8338b40feaa@news.terane ws.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.
You are lying.
>Your claims do not explain why these people are not
>receiving the free care you boast of.
Because you're quoting an urban legend.
>
>>
>> >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.
A huge % have no insurance.
>If I could not afford insurance there are plenty of
>options available that would still let me get treated immediately.
Spoken like someone who's never been poor.
>The only
>true difference is I will never be put on hold for a procedure because there
>is not enough money in the budget.
You would if there's not enough money in your pocket.
>
>>
>> >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.
Prove it. By all data, it's superior -- life expectancy, infant mortality,
etc. And it costs less.
>
>>
>> >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.
Total, flat-out LIE.
>
>> Definition of "Lottery":
>> Millions of stupid people contributing
>> to make one stupid person look smart.
>
>
#6440
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study aboutsafetycanbemisinterpreted by SUV drivers)
In article <3FCFF4B2.3011A2C7@greg.greg>, Greg <greg@greg.greg> wrote:
>Lloyd Parker wrote:
>
>> >> >> ?This
>> >> >> >had the perverse incentive of indicating to plant owners that
routine
>> >> >> maintenance is a BAD IDEA to
>> >> >> >do, because the Government will come after you for doing it. Better
to
>> >> defer
>> >> >> maintenance and not
>> >> >> >keep plants in the most effiicent manner they can be reasonably
>> operated
>> >> in.
>> >> >> But the effect of
>> >> >> >this is that when routine maintenance and minor upgrades become to
>> >> expensive
>> >> >> because of overzealous
>> >> >> >regulation, the effect is that nothing is done and instead the most
>> >> polluting
>> >> >> plants are left in
>> >> >> >operation as is, with no improvements all. The WSJ has reported
>> >> extensively
>> >> >> on this, and
>> >> >>
>> >> >> The WSJ never met an environmental reg it liked, because it never met
a
>> >> >> corporate profit it didn't want increased.
>> >> >
>> >> >What on earth are you babbling about? You can't make your argument
with
>> >> actual
>> >> >facts, so you attack/smear the messenger.
>> >>
>> >> I suggest you cite some source other than one rabidly pro-business to
have
>> any
>> >> credibility.
>> >
>> >The only sources that appears to have credibility with you is the Sierra
Club
>> and
>> >Consumer Reports. Furthermore your slam against WSJ is false and you
cannot
>> >substantiate it.
>>
>> As I said, a newspaper that is avowedly pro-business
>
>To use a word that even you can comprehend: Liar. More on point, you couldn't
even
>try to substantiate your silly slanders. Yes, that's why Daniel Pearl was
killed,
>Parker, because he was running around the world championing business for WSJ.
The
>WSJ has been railing about improper business practices for over a century.
They
>reported the details of Enron when other publications couldn't even explain
the
>basics of the scandal. Its writers even published an in depth book in
addition to
>their newspaper articles. Recently they have been documented questionable
>practices by the alcohol industry. Their description of the recent mutual
fund
>scandals hasn't been "pro business" at all, but has exposed the improper
>activities of business and put it in the spotlight. When the former leader
of
>Tyco stole company funds to host extravagant parties in Sardinia, he told his
>staff to keep it quiet so it he wouldn't "read about it on the front page of
the
>Wall Street Journal". Which is exactly where that scandal was printed.
>
>> cannot be considered an
>> objective source.
>
>So in other words even you can't defend Clinton EPA's horrid record with
actually
>following the written statue, so you attack the messenger. Back to the
earlier
>topic, the Clean Air Act only requires "Best Available Control Technlogy
(BACT)
>for new sources. Old plants undergoing mere maintenance don't meet the
>"substantial modification" requirement of the actual law.
Depends on how extensive the changes are, which is why the EPA sued, and which
is why a number of utilities settled with the EPA.
>
>To quote the article,
>
> "Consider a 1997 strategy memo stamped
> "ENFORCEMENT/SENSITIVE" in which EPA staffers complain
> that "30 year old power plants are operating longer
> and more efficiently than ever." Rather than respond
> to any evidence of wrongdoing, they propose to
> "identify a manageable number of facilities (25) that
> appear particularly deserving of . . . scrutiny." In
> sum: "Our intent is to investigate this industry in a
> way quite different [emphasis added] from earlier,
> more traditional, inspections."
>
> In a 1999 document -- an account of a meeting attended
> by EPA and Justice Department officials -- an EPA
> representative notes the extent to which "the
> Administrator [Ms. Browner] is `emotionally and
> professionally' invested in these cases." The official
> notes that "the latest NSR proposals are `way greener'
> than before," and apparently aware of the scrutiny the
> change will draw, warns the others "do not use e-mail
> for anything you might not want a congressman or a
> magistrate to see."
>
>Yup, that's sure an EPA on the up-and-up. It continues,
Yeah, sure, like the WSJ is believable on this.
If this is so bad, quote from CNN, or ABC, or NY Times, or some source not a
business cheerleader.
>
> An agency manual on "How to Investigate and Prepare a
> PSD/NSR Case," meanwhile, contains this charming
> political suggestion: "Depositions are open to the
> public. Bring lots of people on your side. This can be
> very intimidating."
>
>
>
>
>>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> > Try actually reading the WSJ for once
>> >> >in your life and you would know that you are wrong as when you said
that
>> >> Daimler
>> >> >Chrysler was the only foreign company listed on the New York Stock
>> Exchange,
>> >> as if
>> >> >Sony of Japan (NYSE:SNE) or Deutsch Bank AG (NYSE: DB) and others
>> didn't
>> >> even
>> >> >exist!
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> You're confusing ADRs with actual shares of stock.
>> >
>> >Many non companies (inclding American Depostitary Receipt) are LISTED on
the
>> New
>> >York Stock Exchange and trade like any other stock, contrary to your phony
>> claim
>> >that only DCX is listed on NYSE. Global Shares are no less listed on the
>> NYSE
>> >than ADPs.
>>
>> OK, DB is now on the NYSE, but:
>
>> "Deutsche Bank started trading it's Global Registered Shares on the New
York
>> Stock Exchange on Wednesday, 3 October 2001." (from the DB web site)
>>
>> So at the time of the merger, DC was the only such company listed there.
>
>Wrong. Many companies were listed on NYSE long before DCX existed.
Did you read what the NYSE itself said? I posted it. All that was there
earlier were ADRs.
>But earlier
>you said, ""DC stock is still listed on the NYSE, as is no other stock of a
>company not headquartered in the US." You're waffling, but your waffle is
wrong
>too.
>
>>
>>
>> "DaimlerChrysler (NYSE: DCX), the first company to trade as a global share
in
>> 18 countries simultaneously..." --
>> http://www.nyse.com/content/articles/1043269646436.html
>
>The first "GLOBAL SHARE". Not the first foreign NYSE listed stock, which is
what
>you were talking about. Global share is a new entity, but That is like
saying the
>first LLC is the first company in the US, even though LLCs have only been
around
>for a few years now. Foreign companies have been listed on NYSE long before
DCX
>was dreamt of.
>
Only as ADRs.
>Lloyd Parker wrote:
>
>> >> >> ?This
>> >> >> >had the perverse incentive of indicating to plant owners that
routine
>> >> >> maintenance is a BAD IDEA to
>> >> >> >do, because the Government will come after you for doing it. Better
to
>> >> defer
>> >> >> maintenance and not
>> >> >> >keep plants in the most effiicent manner they can be reasonably
>> operated
>> >> in.
>> >> >> But the effect of
>> >> >> >this is that when routine maintenance and minor upgrades become to
>> >> expensive
>> >> >> because of overzealous
>> >> >> >regulation, the effect is that nothing is done and instead the most
>> >> polluting
>> >> >> plants are left in
>> >> >> >operation as is, with no improvements all. The WSJ has reported
>> >> extensively
>> >> >> on this, and
>> >> >>
>> >> >> The WSJ never met an environmental reg it liked, because it never met
a
>> >> >> corporate profit it didn't want increased.
>> >> >
>> >> >What on earth are you babbling about? You can't make your argument
with
>> >> actual
>> >> >facts, so you attack/smear the messenger.
>> >>
>> >> I suggest you cite some source other than one rabidly pro-business to
have
>> any
>> >> credibility.
>> >
>> >The only sources that appears to have credibility with you is the Sierra
Club
>> and
>> >Consumer Reports. Furthermore your slam against WSJ is false and you
cannot
>> >substantiate it.
>>
>> As I said, a newspaper that is avowedly pro-business
>
>To use a word that even you can comprehend: Liar. More on point, you couldn't
even
>try to substantiate your silly slanders. Yes, that's why Daniel Pearl was
killed,
>Parker, because he was running around the world championing business for WSJ.
The
>WSJ has been railing about improper business practices for over a century.
They
>reported the details of Enron when other publications couldn't even explain
the
>basics of the scandal. Its writers even published an in depth book in
addition to
>their newspaper articles. Recently they have been documented questionable
>practices by the alcohol industry. Their description of the recent mutual
fund
>scandals hasn't been "pro business" at all, but has exposed the improper
>activities of business and put it in the spotlight. When the former leader
of
>Tyco stole company funds to host extravagant parties in Sardinia, he told his
>staff to keep it quiet so it he wouldn't "read about it on the front page of
the
>Wall Street Journal". Which is exactly where that scandal was printed.
>
>> cannot be considered an
>> objective source.
>
>So in other words even you can't defend Clinton EPA's horrid record with
actually
>following the written statue, so you attack the messenger. Back to the
earlier
>topic, the Clean Air Act only requires "Best Available Control Technlogy
(BACT)
>for new sources. Old plants undergoing mere maintenance don't meet the
>"substantial modification" requirement of the actual law.
Depends on how extensive the changes are, which is why the EPA sued, and which
is why a number of utilities settled with the EPA.
>
>To quote the article,
>
> "Consider a 1997 strategy memo stamped
> "ENFORCEMENT/SENSITIVE" in which EPA staffers complain
> that "30 year old power plants are operating longer
> and more efficiently than ever." Rather than respond
> to any evidence of wrongdoing, they propose to
> "identify a manageable number of facilities (25) that
> appear particularly deserving of . . . scrutiny." In
> sum: "Our intent is to investigate this industry in a
> way quite different [emphasis added] from earlier,
> more traditional, inspections."
>
> In a 1999 document -- an account of a meeting attended
> by EPA and Justice Department officials -- an EPA
> representative notes the extent to which "the
> Administrator [Ms. Browner] is `emotionally and
> professionally' invested in these cases." The official
> notes that "the latest NSR proposals are `way greener'
> than before," and apparently aware of the scrutiny the
> change will draw, warns the others "do not use e-mail
> for anything you might not want a congressman or a
> magistrate to see."
>
>Yup, that's sure an EPA on the up-and-up. It continues,
Yeah, sure, like the WSJ is believable on this.
If this is so bad, quote from CNN, or ABC, or NY Times, or some source not a
business cheerleader.
>
> An agency manual on "How to Investigate and Prepare a
> PSD/NSR Case," meanwhile, contains this charming
> political suggestion: "Depositions are open to the
> public. Bring lots of people on your side. This can be
> very intimidating."
>
>
>
>
>>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> > Try actually reading the WSJ for once
>> >> >in your life and you would know that you are wrong as when you said
that
>> >> Daimler
>> >> >Chrysler was the only foreign company listed on the New York Stock
>> Exchange,
>> >> as if
>> >> >Sony of Japan (NYSE:SNE) or Deutsch Bank AG (NYSE: DB) and others
>> didn't
>> >> even
>> >> >exist!
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> You're confusing ADRs with actual shares of stock.
>> >
>> >Many non companies (inclding American Depostitary Receipt) are LISTED on
the
>> New
>> >York Stock Exchange and trade like any other stock, contrary to your phony
>> claim
>> >that only DCX is listed on NYSE. Global Shares are no less listed on the
>> NYSE
>> >than ADPs.
>>
>> OK, DB is now on the NYSE, but:
>
>> "Deutsche Bank started trading it's Global Registered Shares on the New
York
>> Stock Exchange on Wednesday, 3 October 2001." (from the DB web site)
>>
>> So at the time of the merger, DC was the only such company listed there.
>
>Wrong. Many companies were listed on NYSE long before DCX existed.
Did you read what the NYSE itself said? I posted it. All that was there
earlier were ADRs.
>But earlier
>you said, ""DC stock is still listed on the NYSE, as is no other stock of a
>company not headquartered in the US." You're waffling, but your waffle is
wrong
>too.
>
>>
>>
>> "DaimlerChrysler (NYSE: DCX), the first company to trade as a global share
in
>> 18 countries simultaneously..." --
>> http://www.nyse.com/content/articles/1043269646436.html
>
>The first "GLOBAL SHARE". Not the first foreign NYSE listed stock, which is
what
>you were talking about. Global share is a new entity, but That is like
saying the
>first LLC is the first company in the US, even though LLCs have only been
around
>for a few years now. Foreign companies have been listed on NYSE long before
DCX
>was dreamt of.
>
Only as ADRs.