Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
#7011
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety canbe misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
Why is this ---- in the car groups?
"Bill Funk" <bfunk33@pipping.com> wrote in message
news:4tl4tv8r0suoe4arke323b2185bdqlsele@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 05 Dec 2003 23:33:26 -0500, Bill Putney <bputney@kinez.net>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >"C. E. White" wrote:
> >
> >> Lesbian couples can even have children.
> >
> >Technically, no. There has to be a real ----- involved somewhere.
>
> If, by "have" you mean "beget", you're right.
> However, couples that can't beget children can still have children in
> their family.
> --
> Bill Funk
> replace "g" with "a"
"Bill Funk" <bfunk33@pipping.com> wrote in message
news:4tl4tv8r0suoe4arke323b2185bdqlsele@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 05 Dec 2003 23:33:26 -0500, Bill Putney <bputney@kinez.net>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >"C. E. White" wrote:
> >
> >> Lesbian couples can even have children.
> >
> >Technically, no. There has to be a real ----- involved somewhere.
>
> If, by "have" you mean "beget", you're right.
> However, couples that can't beget children can still have children in
> their family.
> --
> Bill Funk
> replace "g" with "a"
#7012
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety canbe misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
Why is this ---- in the car groups?
"Bill Funk" <bfunk33@pipping.com> wrote in message
news:4tl4tv8r0suoe4arke323b2185bdqlsele@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 05 Dec 2003 23:33:26 -0500, Bill Putney <bputney@kinez.net>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >"C. E. White" wrote:
> >
> >> Lesbian couples can even have children.
> >
> >Technically, no. There has to be a real ----- involved somewhere.
>
> If, by "have" you mean "beget", you're right.
> However, couples that can't beget children can still have children in
> their family.
> --
> Bill Funk
> replace "g" with "a"
"Bill Funk" <bfunk33@pipping.com> wrote in message
news:4tl4tv8r0suoe4arke323b2185bdqlsele@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 05 Dec 2003 23:33:26 -0500, Bill Putney <bputney@kinez.net>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >"C. E. White" wrote:
> >
> >> Lesbian couples can even have children.
> >
> >Technically, no. There has to be a real ----- involved somewhere.
>
> If, by "have" you mean "beget", you're right.
> However, couples that can't beget children can still have children in
> their family.
> --
> Bill Funk
> replace "g" with "a"
#7013
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
Why is this ---- in the car groups?
"z" <gzuckier@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:b5b4685f.0312061421.24c3bc71@posting.google.c om...
> Greg (greg@greg.greg) wrote:
> Subject: Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about
> safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
>
> >Lloyd Parker wrote:
> >> >>>>>> Yeah, it'd be terrible if everybody were covered and we
> spent less on >health
> >> >>>>>> care, as Europe, Canada, and Japan do, wouldn't it?
> Terrible for >insurance
> >> >>>>>> companies, drug companies, HMOs, etc, that is.
> > >>>>>How would we spend "less on health care" ? Instead of paying for
health
> > >>>>>insurance we would pay *AT LEAST* that much in additional taxes.
>
> Americans are now spending over $5,000 per capita on healthcare, more
> than double what is spent in Canada, or any other country, and that's
> with like 40% of the people not belonging to any health plan. What
> makes you think we would 'spend *AT LEAST* that much in additional
> taxes'?
>
> > >>>> Why is it, then, that every western European nation, plus Canada
and Japan,
> > >>>> spend less per capita on health care than the US yet still cover
everybody?
> > >>>Answer a question with a question. How does your state run health
care
> > >>>system cost less than the current private one?
>
> Because there are no expenses for HMO marketing, competing redundant
> HMO bureaucracies (if you think the government bureaucracy is bad
> you're not familiar with HMOs), huge executive salaries, dividends and
> profits for shareholders, money to cover investment losses (a big
> factor in the current sudden rise in insurance costs, or didn't you
> know that that's what insurance companies and HMOs do with your
> money?); because providers don't have to spend significant chunks of
> their highly expensive time filling out various and sundry varieties
> of reimbursement forms; because there are no random deliberate or
> accidental routine nonpayments of bills that should be paid, requiring
> a repeat of the reimbursement process; because a huge health plan has
> the market muscle to wrestle low charges from providers, who then
> charge correspondingly more for smaller plans and charge the maximum
> for individuals paying out of pocket. (Or did you have no idea the
> discount your health plan, if you have one, gets from the amount you
> see on your hospital bill?)
> Of course, that explains why Medicare gets the lowest rates in the US,
> and is one of the most successful plans in terms of patient
> satisfaction, as well as being the only health plan in the US whose
> members get care that's at or near the top rank of the industrialized
> nations. Ironic, because of course it is, of course, state-run
> healthcare.
>
> > >> Because all the examples we have of state-run health care say it
would.
> > >> Economy of scale, negotiation for lower prices, preventative care
instead of
> > >> waiting until the person becomes sick -- all these and other factors.
> > >
> > >So your answer is we would save money through the reduced quality of
care.
> > >I suggest you gain some experience with how government price controls
> > >have a negative impact on care, at least with regards to how it works
> > >in the USA.
> > >
> > >
> > Again, I refer you to all the data which shows people in Canada and
western
> > Europe are healthier and live longer.
>
> >And naturally this has absolutely nothing to do with lifestyle, food
> choices,
> >relative scarcity of obesity, and regular excercise as part of the
> daily
> >routine. Nope, it must only because of state run health care.
>
> Well, yeah, good to see it's dawning on you.
> The famous JAMA 7/26/2000 paper points out that the US doesn't have
> such bad habits as to put it at the bottom of the barrel for health
> care outcomes; we're the 5th best and 3rd best for smoking for females
> and males, 5th best for alcohol consumption, fifth best in consumption
> of animal fats and third best for cholesterol level, for instance. And
> deaths from unnatural causes, like getting shot or car accidents, are
> not included. So, if we rank at the bottom of healthcare measures of
> quality without ranking at the bottom for lifestyle causes, it's hard
> to escape the implication that we are just not getting the best or
> most appropriate care, regardless of price.
> But enough about me and what I know; what evidence do you have that
> you are getting the best care in the industrialized world, or even
> average care for the industrialized world, other than your deep-seated
> belief that anything else would be just too unthinkable to even
> consider?
"z" <gzuckier@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:b5b4685f.0312061421.24c3bc71@posting.google.c om...
> Greg (greg@greg.greg) wrote:
> Subject: Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about
> safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
>
> >Lloyd Parker wrote:
> >> >>>>>> Yeah, it'd be terrible if everybody were covered and we
> spent less on >health
> >> >>>>>> care, as Europe, Canada, and Japan do, wouldn't it?
> Terrible for >insurance
> >> >>>>>> companies, drug companies, HMOs, etc, that is.
> > >>>>>How would we spend "less on health care" ? Instead of paying for
health
> > >>>>>insurance we would pay *AT LEAST* that much in additional taxes.
>
> Americans are now spending over $5,000 per capita on healthcare, more
> than double what is spent in Canada, or any other country, and that's
> with like 40% of the people not belonging to any health plan. What
> makes you think we would 'spend *AT LEAST* that much in additional
> taxes'?
>
> > >>>> Why is it, then, that every western European nation, plus Canada
and Japan,
> > >>>> spend less per capita on health care than the US yet still cover
everybody?
> > >>>Answer a question with a question. How does your state run health
care
> > >>>system cost less than the current private one?
>
> Because there are no expenses for HMO marketing, competing redundant
> HMO bureaucracies (if you think the government bureaucracy is bad
> you're not familiar with HMOs), huge executive salaries, dividends and
> profits for shareholders, money to cover investment losses (a big
> factor in the current sudden rise in insurance costs, or didn't you
> know that that's what insurance companies and HMOs do with your
> money?); because providers don't have to spend significant chunks of
> their highly expensive time filling out various and sundry varieties
> of reimbursement forms; because there are no random deliberate or
> accidental routine nonpayments of bills that should be paid, requiring
> a repeat of the reimbursement process; because a huge health plan has
> the market muscle to wrestle low charges from providers, who then
> charge correspondingly more for smaller plans and charge the maximum
> for individuals paying out of pocket. (Or did you have no idea the
> discount your health plan, if you have one, gets from the amount you
> see on your hospital bill?)
> Of course, that explains why Medicare gets the lowest rates in the US,
> and is one of the most successful plans in terms of patient
> satisfaction, as well as being the only health plan in the US whose
> members get care that's at or near the top rank of the industrialized
> nations. Ironic, because of course it is, of course, state-run
> healthcare.
>
> > >> Because all the examples we have of state-run health care say it
would.
> > >> Economy of scale, negotiation for lower prices, preventative care
instead of
> > >> waiting until the person becomes sick -- all these and other factors.
> > >
> > >So your answer is we would save money through the reduced quality of
care.
> > >I suggest you gain some experience with how government price controls
> > >have a negative impact on care, at least with regards to how it works
> > >in the USA.
> > >
> > >
> > Again, I refer you to all the data which shows people in Canada and
western
> > Europe are healthier and live longer.
>
> >And naturally this has absolutely nothing to do with lifestyle, food
> choices,
> >relative scarcity of obesity, and regular excercise as part of the
> daily
> >routine. Nope, it must only because of state run health care.
>
> Well, yeah, good to see it's dawning on you.
> The famous JAMA 7/26/2000 paper points out that the US doesn't have
> such bad habits as to put it at the bottom of the barrel for health
> care outcomes; we're the 5th best and 3rd best for smoking for females
> and males, 5th best for alcohol consumption, fifth best in consumption
> of animal fats and third best for cholesterol level, for instance. And
> deaths from unnatural causes, like getting shot or car accidents, are
> not included. So, if we rank at the bottom of healthcare measures of
> quality without ranking at the bottom for lifestyle causes, it's hard
> to escape the implication that we are just not getting the best or
> most appropriate care, regardless of price.
> But enough about me and what I know; what evidence do you have that
> you are getting the best care in the industrialized world, or even
> average care for the industrialized world, other than your deep-seated
> belief that anything else would be just too unthinkable to even
> consider?
#7014
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
Why is this ---- in the car groups?
"z" <gzuckier@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:b5b4685f.0312061421.24c3bc71@posting.google.c om...
> Greg (greg@greg.greg) wrote:
> Subject: Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about
> safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
>
> >Lloyd Parker wrote:
> >> >>>>>> Yeah, it'd be terrible if everybody were covered and we
> spent less on >health
> >> >>>>>> care, as Europe, Canada, and Japan do, wouldn't it?
> Terrible for >insurance
> >> >>>>>> companies, drug companies, HMOs, etc, that is.
> > >>>>>How would we spend "less on health care" ? Instead of paying for
health
> > >>>>>insurance we would pay *AT LEAST* that much in additional taxes.
>
> Americans are now spending over $5,000 per capita on healthcare, more
> than double what is spent in Canada, or any other country, and that's
> with like 40% of the people not belonging to any health plan. What
> makes you think we would 'spend *AT LEAST* that much in additional
> taxes'?
>
> > >>>> Why is it, then, that every western European nation, plus Canada
and Japan,
> > >>>> spend less per capita on health care than the US yet still cover
everybody?
> > >>>Answer a question with a question. How does your state run health
care
> > >>>system cost less than the current private one?
>
> Because there are no expenses for HMO marketing, competing redundant
> HMO bureaucracies (if you think the government bureaucracy is bad
> you're not familiar with HMOs), huge executive salaries, dividends and
> profits for shareholders, money to cover investment losses (a big
> factor in the current sudden rise in insurance costs, or didn't you
> know that that's what insurance companies and HMOs do with your
> money?); because providers don't have to spend significant chunks of
> their highly expensive time filling out various and sundry varieties
> of reimbursement forms; because there are no random deliberate or
> accidental routine nonpayments of bills that should be paid, requiring
> a repeat of the reimbursement process; because a huge health plan has
> the market muscle to wrestle low charges from providers, who then
> charge correspondingly more for smaller plans and charge the maximum
> for individuals paying out of pocket. (Or did you have no idea the
> discount your health plan, if you have one, gets from the amount you
> see on your hospital bill?)
> Of course, that explains why Medicare gets the lowest rates in the US,
> and is one of the most successful plans in terms of patient
> satisfaction, as well as being the only health plan in the US whose
> members get care that's at or near the top rank of the industrialized
> nations. Ironic, because of course it is, of course, state-run
> healthcare.
>
> > >> Because all the examples we have of state-run health care say it
would.
> > >> Economy of scale, negotiation for lower prices, preventative care
instead of
> > >> waiting until the person becomes sick -- all these and other factors.
> > >
> > >So your answer is we would save money through the reduced quality of
care.
> > >I suggest you gain some experience with how government price controls
> > >have a negative impact on care, at least with regards to how it works
> > >in the USA.
> > >
> > >
> > Again, I refer you to all the data which shows people in Canada and
western
> > Europe are healthier and live longer.
>
> >And naturally this has absolutely nothing to do with lifestyle, food
> choices,
> >relative scarcity of obesity, and regular excercise as part of the
> daily
> >routine. Nope, it must only because of state run health care.
>
> Well, yeah, good to see it's dawning on you.
> The famous JAMA 7/26/2000 paper points out that the US doesn't have
> such bad habits as to put it at the bottom of the barrel for health
> care outcomes; we're the 5th best and 3rd best for smoking for females
> and males, 5th best for alcohol consumption, fifth best in consumption
> of animal fats and third best for cholesterol level, for instance. And
> deaths from unnatural causes, like getting shot or car accidents, are
> not included. So, if we rank at the bottom of healthcare measures of
> quality without ranking at the bottom for lifestyle causes, it's hard
> to escape the implication that we are just not getting the best or
> most appropriate care, regardless of price.
> But enough about me and what I know; what evidence do you have that
> you are getting the best care in the industrialized world, or even
> average care for the industrialized world, other than your deep-seated
> belief that anything else would be just too unthinkable to even
> consider?
"z" <gzuckier@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:b5b4685f.0312061421.24c3bc71@posting.google.c om...
> Greg (greg@greg.greg) wrote:
> Subject: Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about
> safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
>
> >Lloyd Parker wrote:
> >> >>>>>> Yeah, it'd be terrible if everybody were covered and we
> spent less on >health
> >> >>>>>> care, as Europe, Canada, and Japan do, wouldn't it?
> Terrible for >insurance
> >> >>>>>> companies, drug companies, HMOs, etc, that is.
> > >>>>>How would we spend "less on health care" ? Instead of paying for
health
> > >>>>>insurance we would pay *AT LEAST* that much in additional taxes.
>
> Americans are now spending over $5,000 per capita on healthcare, more
> than double what is spent in Canada, or any other country, and that's
> with like 40% of the people not belonging to any health plan. What
> makes you think we would 'spend *AT LEAST* that much in additional
> taxes'?
>
> > >>>> Why is it, then, that every western European nation, plus Canada
and Japan,
> > >>>> spend less per capita on health care than the US yet still cover
everybody?
> > >>>Answer a question with a question. How does your state run health
care
> > >>>system cost less than the current private one?
>
> Because there are no expenses for HMO marketing, competing redundant
> HMO bureaucracies (if you think the government bureaucracy is bad
> you're not familiar with HMOs), huge executive salaries, dividends and
> profits for shareholders, money to cover investment losses (a big
> factor in the current sudden rise in insurance costs, or didn't you
> know that that's what insurance companies and HMOs do with your
> money?); because providers don't have to spend significant chunks of
> their highly expensive time filling out various and sundry varieties
> of reimbursement forms; because there are no random deliberate or
> accidental routine nonpayments of bills that should be paid, requiring
> a repeat of the reimbursement process; because a huge health plan has
> the market muscle to wrestle low charges from providers, who then
> charge correspondingly more for smaller plans and charge the maximum
> for individuals paying out of pocket. (Or did you have no idea the
> discount your health plan, if you have one, gets from the amount you
> see on your hospital bill?)
> Of course, that explains why Medicare gets the lowest rates in the US,
> and is one of the most successful plans in terms of patient
> satisfaction, as well as being the only health plan in the US whose
> members get care that's at or near the top rank of the industrialized
> nations. Ironic, because of course it is, of course, state-run
> healthcare.
>
> > >> Because all the examples we have of state-run health care say it
would.
> > >> Economy of scale, negotiation for lower prices, preventative care
instead of
> > >> waiting until the person becomes sick -- all these and other factors.
> > >
> > >So your answer is we would save money through the reduced quality of
care.
> > >I suggest you gain some experience with how government price controls
> > >have a negative impact on care, at least with regards to how it works
> > >in the USA.
> > >
> > >
> > Again, I refer you to all the data which shows people in Canada and
western
> > Europe are healthier and live longer.
>
> >And naturally this has absolutely nothing to do with lifestyle, food
> choices,
> >relative scarcity of obesity, and regular excercise as part of the
> daily
> >routine. Nope, it must only because of state run health care.
>
> Well, yeah, good to see it's dawning on you.
> The famous JAMA 7/26/2000 paper points out that the US doesn't have
> such bad habits as to put it at the bottom of the barrel for health
> care outcomes; we're the 5th best and 3rd best for smoking for females
> and males, 5th best for alcohol consumption, fifth best in consumption
> of animal fats and third best for cholesterol level, for instance. And
> deaths from unnatural causes, like getting shot or car accidents, are
> not included. So, if we rank at the bottom of healthcare measures of
> quality without ranking at the bottom for lifestyle causes, it's hard
> to escape the implication that we are just not getting the best or
> most appropriate care, regardless of price.
> But enough about me and what I know; what evidence do you have that
> you are getting the best care in the industrialized world, or even
> average care for the industrialized world, other than your deep-seated
> belief that anything else would be just too unthinkable to even
> consider?
#7015
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
Why is this ---- in the car groups?
"z" <gzuckier@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:b5b4685f.0312061421.24c3bc71@posting.google.c om...
> Greg (greg@greg.greg) wrote:
> Subject: Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about
> safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
>
> >Lloyd Parker wrote:
> >> >>>>>> Yeah, it'd be terrible if everybody were covered and we
> spent less on >health
> >> >>>>>> care, as Europe, Canada, and Japan do, wouldn't it?
> Terrible for >insurance
> >> >>>>>> companies, drug companies, HMOs, etc, that is.
> > >>>>>How would we spend "less on health care" ? Instead of paying for
health
> > >>>>>insurance we would pay *AT LEAST* that much in additional taxes.
>
> Americans are now spending over $5,000 per capita on healthcare, more
> than double what is spent in Canada, or any other country, and that's
> with like 40% of the people not belonging to any health plan. What
> makes you think we would 'spend *AT LEAST* that much in additional
> taxes'?
>
> > >>>> Why is it, then, that every western European nation, plus Canada
and Japan,
> > >>>> spend less per capita on health care than the US yet still cover
everybody?
> > >>>Answer a question with a question. How does your state run health
care
> > >>>system cost less than the current private one?
>
> Because there are no expenses for HMO marketing, competing redundant
> HMO bureaucracies (if you think the government bureaucracy is bad
> you're not familiar with HMOs), huge executive salaries, dividends and
> profits for shareholders, money to cover investment losses (a big
> factor in the current sudden rise in insurance costs, or didn't you
> know that that's what insurance companies and HMOs do with your
> money?); because providers don't have to spend significant chunks of
> their highly expensive time filling out various and sundry varieties
> of reimbursement forms; because there are no random deliberate or
> accidental routine nonpayments of bills that should be paid, requiring
> a repeat of the reimbursement process; because a huge health plan has
> the market muscle to wrestle low charges from providers, who then
> charge correspondingly more for smaller plans and charge the maximum
> for individuals paying out of pocket. (Or did you have no idea the
> discount your health plan, if you have one, gets from the amount you
> see on your hospital bill?)
> Of course, that explains why Medicare gets the lowest rates in the US,
> and is one of the most successful plans in terms of patient
> satisfaction, as well as being the only health plan in the US whose
> members get care that's at or near the top rank of the industrialized
> nations. Ironic, because of course it is, of course, state-run
> healthcare.
>
> > >> Because all the examples we have of state-run health care say it
would.
> > >> Economy of scale, negotiation for lower prices, preventative care
instead of
> > >> waiting until the person becomes sick -- all these and other factors.
> > >
> > >So your answer is we would save money through the reduced quality of
care.
> > >I suggest you gain some experience with how government price controls
> > >have a negative impact on care, at least with regards to how it works
> > >in the USA.
> > >
> > >
> > Again, I refer you to all the data which shows people in Canada and
western
> > Europe are healthier and live longer.
>
> >And naturally this has absolutely nothing to do with lifestyle, food
> choices,
> >relative scarcity of obesity, and regular excercise as part of the
> daily
> >routine. Nope, it must only because of state run health care.
>
> Well, yeah, good to see it's dawning on you.
> The famous JAMA 7/26/2000 paper points out that the US doesn't have
> such bad habits as to put it at the bottom of the barrel for health
> care outcomes; we're the 5th best and 3rd best for smoking for females
> and males, 5th best for alcohol consumption, fifth best in consumption
> of animal fats and third best for cholesterol level, for instance. And
> deaths from unnatural causes, like getting shot or car accidents, are
> not included. So, if we rank at the bottom of healthcare measures of
> quality without ranking at the bottom for lifestyle causes, it's hard
> to escape the implication that we are just not getting the best or
> most appropriate care, regardless of price.
> But enough about me and what I know; what evidence do you have that
> you are getting the best care in the industrialized world, or even
> average care for the industrialized world, other than your deep-seated
> belief that anything else would be just too unthinkable to even
> consider?
"z" <gzuckier@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:b5b4685f.0312061421.24c3bc71@posting.google.c om...
> Greg (greg@greg.greg) wrote:
> Subject: Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about
> safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
>
> >Lloyd Parker wrote:
> >> >>>>>> Yeah, it'd be terrible if everybody were covered and we
> spent less on >health
> >> >>>>>> care, as Europe, Canada, and Japan do, wouldn't it?
> Terrible for >insurance
> >> >>>>>> companies, drug companies, HMOs, etc, that is.
> > >>>>>How would we spend "less on health care" ? Instead of paying for
health
> > >>>>>insurance we would pay *AT LEAST* that much in additional taxes.
>
> Americans are now spending over $5,000 per capita on healthcare, more
> than double what is spent in Canada, or any other country, and that's
> with like 40% of the people not belonging to any health plan. What
> makes you think we would 'spend *AT LEAST* that much in additional
> taxes'?
>
> > >>>> Why is it, then, that every western European nation, plus Canada
and Japan,
> > >>>> spend less per capita on health care than the US yet still cover
everybody?
> > >>>Answer a question with a question. How does your state run health
care
> > >>>system cost less than the current private one?
>
> Because there are no expenses for HMO marketing, competing redundant
> HMO bureaucracies (if you think the government bureaucracy is bad
> you're not familiar with HMOs), huge executive salaries, dividends and
> profits for shareholders, money to cover investment losses (a big
> factor in the current sudden rise in insurance costs, or didn't you
> know that that's what insurance companies and HMOs do with your
> money?); because providers don't have to spend significant chunks of
> their highly expensive time filling out various and sundry varieties
> of reimbursement forms; because there are no random deliberate or
> accidental routine nonpayments of bills that should be paid, requiring
> a repeat of the reimbursement process; because a huge health plan has
> the market muscle to wrestle low charges from providers, who then
> charge correspondingly more for smaller plans and charge the maximum
> for individuals paying out of pocket. (Or did you have no idea the
> discount your health plan, if you have one, gets from the amount you
> see on your hospital bill?)
> Of course, that explains why Medicare gets the lowest rates in the US,
> and is one of the most successful plans in terms of patient
> satisfaction, as well as being the only health plan in the US whose
> members get care that's at or near the top rank of the industrialized
> nations. Ironic, because of course it is, of course, state-run
> healthcare.
>
> > >> Because all the examples we have of state-run health care say it
would.
> > >> Economy of scale, negotiation for lower prices, preventative care
instead of
> > >> waiting until the person becomes sick -- all these and other factors.
> > >
> > >So your answer is we would save money through the reduced quality of
care.
> > >I suggest you gain some experience with how government price controls
> > >have a negative impact on care, at least with regards to how it works
> > >in the USA.
> > >
> > >
> > Again, I refer you to all the data which shows people in Canada and
western
> > Europe are healthier and live longer.
>
> >And naturally this has absolutely nothing to do with lifestyle, food
> choices,
> >relative scarcity of obesity, and regular excercise as part of the
> daily
> >routine. Nope, it must only because of state run health care.
>
> Well, yeah, good to see it's dawning on you.
> The famous JAMA 7/26/2000 paper points out that the US doesn't have
> such bad habits as to put it at the bottom of the barrel for health
> care outcomes; we're the 5th best and 3rd best for smoking for females
> and males, 5th best for alcohol consumption, fifth best in consumption
> of animal fats and third best for cholesterol level, for instance. And
> deaths from unnatural causes, like getting shot or car accidents, are
> not included. So, if we rank at the bottom of healthcare measures of
> quality without ranking at the bottom for lifestyle causes, it's hard
> to escape the implication that we are just not getting the best or
> most appropriate care, regardless of price.
> But enough about me and what I know; what evidence do you have that
> you are getting the best care in the industrialized world, or even
> average care for the industrialized world, other than your deep-seated
> belief that anything else would be just too unthinkable to even
> consider?
#7016
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
Why is this ---- in the car groups?
"z" <gzuckier@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:b5b4685f.0312061421.24c3bc71@posting.google.c om...
> Greg (greg@greg.greg) wrote:
> Subject: Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about
> safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
>
> >Lloyd Parker wrote:
> >> >>>>>> Yeah, it'd be terrible if everybody were covered and we
> spent less on >health
> >> >>>>>> care, as Europe, Canada, and Japan do, wouldn't it?
> Terrible for >insurance
> >> >>>>>> companies, drug companies, HMOs, etc, that is.
> > >>>>>How would we spend "less on health care" ? Instead of paying for
health
> > >>>>>insurance we would pay *AT LEAST* that much in additional taxes.
>
> Americans are now spending over $5,000 per capita on healthcare, more
> than double what is spent in Canada, or any other country, and that's
> with like 40% of the people not belonging to any health plan. What
> makes you think we would 'spend *AT LEAST* that much in additional
> taxes'?
>
> > >>>> Why is it, then, that every western European nation, plus Canada
and Japan,
> > >>>> spend less per capita on health care than the US yet still cover
everybody?
> > >>>Answer a question with a question. How does your state run health
care
> > >>>system cost less than the current private one?
>
> Because there are no expenses for HMO marketing, competing redundant
> HMO bureaucracies (if you think the government bureaucracy is bad
> you're not familiar with HMOs), huge executive salaries, dividends and
> profits for shareholders, money to cover investment losses (a big
> factor in the current sudden rise in insurance costs, or didn't you
> know that that's what insurance companies and HMOs do with your
> money?); because providers don't have to spend significant chunks of
> their highly expensive time filling out various and sundry varieties
> of reimbursement forms; because there are no random deliberate or
> accidental routine nonpayments of bills that should be paid, requiring
> a repeat of the reimbursement process; because a huge health plan has
> the market muscle to wrestle low charges from providers, who then
> charge correspondingly more for smaller plans and charge the maximum
> for individuals paying out of pocket. (Or did you have no idea the
> discount your health plan, if you have one, gets from the amount you
> see on your hospital bill?)
> Of course, that explains why Medicare gets the lowest rates in the US,
> and is one of the most successful plans in terms of patient
> satisfaction, as well as being the only health plan in the US whose
> members get care that's at or near the top rank of the industrialized
> nations. Ironic, because of course it is, of course, state-run
> healthcare.
>
> > >> Because all the examples we have of state-run health care say it
would.
> > >> Economy of scale, negotiation for lower prices, preventative care
instead of
> > >> waiting until the person becomes sick -- all these and other factors.
> > >
> > >So your answer is we would save money through the reduced quality of
care.
> > >I suggest you gain some experience with how government price controls
> > >have a negative impact on care, at least with regards to how it works
> > >in the USA.
> > >
> > >
> > Again, I refer you to all the data which shows people in Canada and
western
> > Europe are healthier and live longer.
>
> >And naturally this has absolutely nothing to do with lifestyle, food
> choices,
> >relative scarcity of obesity, and regular excercise as part of the
> daily
> >routine. Nope, it must only because of state run health care.
>
> Well, yeah, good to see it's dawning on you.
> The famous JAMA 7/26/2000 paper points out that the US doesn't have
> such bad habits as to put it at the bottom of the barrel for health
> care outcomes; we're the 5th best and 3rd best for smoking for females
> and males, 5th best for alcohol consumption, fifth best in consumption
> of animal fats and third best for cholesterol level, for instance. And
> deaths from unnatural causes, like getting shot or car accidents, are
> not included. So, if we rank at the bottom of healthcare measures of
> quality without ranking at the bottom for lifestyle causes, it's hard
> to escape the implication that we are just not getting the best or
> most appropriate care, regardless of price.
> But enough about me and what I know; what evidence do you have that
> you are getting the best care in the industrialized world, or even
> average care for the industrialized world, other than your deep-seated
> belief that anything else would be just too unthinkable to even
> consider?
"z" <gzuckier@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:b5b4685f.0312061421.24c3bc71@posting.google.c om...
> Greg (greg@greg.greg) wrote:
> Subject: Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about
> safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
>
> >Lloyd Parker wrote:
> >> >>>>>> Yeah, it'd be terrible if everybody were covered and we
> spent less on >health
> >> >>>>>> care, as Europe, Canada, and Japan do, wouldn't it?
> Terrible for >insurance
> >> >>>>>> companies, drug companies, HMOs, etc, that is.
> > >>>>>How would we spend "less on health care" ? Instead of paying for
health
> > >>>>>insurance we would pay *AT LEAST* that much in additional taxes.
>
> Americans are now spending over $5,000 per capita on healthcare, more
> than double what is spent in Canada, or any other country, and that's
> with like 40% of the people not belonging to any health plan. What
> makes you think we would 'spend *AT LEAST* that much in additional
> taxes'?
>
> > >>>> Why is it, then, that every western European nation, plus Canada
and Japan,
> > >>>> spend less per capita on health care than the US yet still cover
everybody?
> > >>>Answer a question with a question. How does your state run health
care
> > >>>system cost less than the current private one?
>
> Because there are no expenses for HMO marketing, competing redundant
> HMO bureaucracies (if you think the government bureaucracy is bad
> you're not familiar with HMOs), huge executive salaries, dividends and
> profits for shareholders, money to cover investment losses (a big
> factor in the current sudden rise in insurance costs, or didn't you
> know that that's what insurance companies and HMOs do with your
> money?); because providers don't have to spend significant chunks of
> their highly expensive time filling out various and sundry varieties
> of reimbursement forms; because there are no random deliberate or
> accidental routine nonpayments of bills that should be paid, requiring
> a repeat of the reimbursement process; because a huge health plan has
> the market muscle to wrestle low charges from providers, who then
> charge correspondingly more for smaller plans and charge the maximum
> for individuals paying out of pocket. (Or did you have no idea the
> discount your health plan, if you have one, gets from the amount you
> see on your hospital bill?)
> Of course, that explains why Medicare gets the lowest rates in the US,
> and is one of the most successful plans in terms of patient
> satisfaction, as well as being the only health plan in the US whose
> members get care that's at or near the top rank of the industrialized
> nations. Ironic, because of course it is, of course, state-run
> healthcare.
>
> > >> Because all the examples we have of state-run health care say it
would.
> > >> Economy of scale, negotiation for lower prices, preventative care
instead of
> > >> waiting until the person becomes sick -- all these and other factors.
> > >
> > >So your answer is we would save money through the reduced quality of
care.
> > >I suggest you gain some experience with how government price controls
> > >have a negative impact on care, at least with regards to how it works
> > >in the USA.
> > >
> > >
> > Again, I refer you to all the data which shows people in Canada and
western
> > Europe are healthier and live longer.
>
> >And naturally this has absolutely nothing to do with lifestyle, food
> choices,
> >relative scarcity of obesity, and regular excercise as part of the
> daily
> >routine. Nope, it must only because of state run health care.
>
> Well, yeah, good to see it's dawning on you.
> The famous JAMA 7/26/2000 paper points out that the US doesn't have
> such bad habits as to put it at the bottom of the barrel for health
> care outcomes; we're the 5th best and 3rd best for smoking for females
> and males, 5th best for alcohol consumption, fifth best in consumption
> of animal fats and third best for cholesterol level, for instance. And
> deaths from unnatural causes, like getting shot or car accidents, are
> not included. So, if we rank at the bottom of healthcare measures of
> quality without ranking at the bottom for lifestyle causes, it's hard
> to escape the implication that we are just not getting the best or
> most appropriate care, regardless of price.
> But enough about me and what I know; what evidence do you have that
> you are getting the best care in the industrialized world, or even
> average care for the industrialized world, other than your deep-seated
> belief that anything else would be just too unthinkable to even
> consider?
#7017
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
Why is this ---- in the car groups?
"z" <gzuckier@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:b5b4685f.0312061421.24c3bc71@posting.google.c om...
> Greg (greg@greg.greg) wrote:
> Subject: Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about
> safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
>
> >Lloyd Parker wrote:
> >> >>>>>> Yeah, it'd be terrible if everybody were covered and we
> spent less on >health
> >> >>>>>> care, as Europe, Canada, and Japan do, wouldn't it?
> Terrible for >insurance
> >> >>>>>> companies, drug companies, HMOs, etc, that is.
> > >>>>>How would we spend "less on health care" ? Instead of paying for
health
> > >>>>>insurance we would pay *AT LEAST* that much in additional taxes.
>
> Americans are now spending over $5,000 per capita on healthcare, more
> than double what is spent in Canada, or any other country, and that's
> with like 40% of the people not belonging to any health plan. What
> makes you think we would 'spend *AT LEAST* that much in additional
> taxes'?
>
> > >>>> Why is it, then, that every western European nation, plus Canada
and Japan,
> > >>>> spend less per capita on health care than the US yet still cover
everybody?
> > >>>Answer a question with a question. How does your state run health
care
> > >>>system cost less than the current private one?
>
> Because there are no expenses for HMO marketing, competing redundant
> HMO bureaucracies (if you think the government bureaucracy is bad
> you're not familiar with HMOs), huge executive salaries, dividends and
> profits for shareholders, money to cover investment losses (a big
> factor in the current sudden rise in insurance costs, or didn't you
> know that that's what insurance companies and HMOs do with your
> money?); because providers don't have to spend significant chunks of
> their highly expensive time filling out various and sundry varieties
> of reimbursement forms; because there are no random deliberate or
> accidental routine nonpayments of bills that should be paid, requiring
> a repeat of the reimbursement process; because a huge health plan has
> the market muscle to wrestle low charges from providers, who then
> charge correspondingly more for smaller plans and charge the maximum
> for individuals paying out of pocket. (Or did you have no idea the
> discount your health plan, if you have one, gets from the amount you
> see on your hospital bill?)
> Of course, that explains why Medicare gets the lowest rates in the US,
> and is one of the most successful plans in terms of patient
> satisfaction, as well as being the only health plan in the US whose
> members get care that's at or near the top rank of the industrialized
> nations. Ironic, because of course it is, of course, state-run
> healthcare.
>
> > >> Because all the examples we have of state-run health care say it
would.
> > >> Economy of scale, negotiation for lower prices, preventative care
instead of
> > >> waiting until the person becomes sick -- all these and other factors.
> > >
> > >So your answer is we would save money through the reduced quality of
care.
> > >I suggest you gain some experience with how government price controls
> > >have a negative impact on care, at least with regards to how it works
> > >in the USA.
> > >
> > >
> > Again, I refer you to all the data which shows people in Canada and
western
> > Europe are healthier and live longer.
>
> >And naturally this has absolutely nothing to do with lifestyle, food
> choices,
> >relative scarcity of obesity, and regular excercise as part of the
> daily
> >routine. Nope, it must only because of state run health care.
>
> Well, yeah, good to see it's dawning on you.
> The famous JAMA 7/26/2000 paper points out that the US doesn't have
> such bad habits as to put it at the bottom of the barrel for health
> care outcomes; we're the 5th best and 3rd best for smoking for females
> and males, 5th best for alcohol consumption, fifth best in consumption
> of animal fats and third best for cholesterol level, for instance. And
> deaths from unnatural causes, like getting shot or car accidents, are
> not included. So, if we rank at the bottom of healthcare measures of
> quality without ranking at the bottom for lifestyle causes, it's hard
> to escape the implication that we are just not getting the best or
> most appropriate care, regardless of price.
> But enough about me and what I know; what evidence do you have that
> you are getting the best care in the industrialized world, or even
> average care for the industrialized world, other than your deep-seated
> belief that anything else would be just too unthinkable to even
> consider?
"z" <gzuckier@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:b5b4685f.0312061421.24c3bc71@posting.google.c om...
> Greg (greg@greg.greg) wrote:
> Subject: Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about
> safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
>
> >Lloyd Parker wrote:
> >> >>>>>> Yeah, it'd be terrible if everybody were covered and we
> spent less on >health
> >> >>>>>> care, as Europe, Canada, and Japan do, wouldn't it?
> Terrible for >insurance
> >> >>>>>> companies, drug companies, HMOs, etc, that is.
> > >>>>>How would we spend "less on health care" ? Instead of paying for
health
> > >>>>>insurance we would pay *AT LEAST* that much in additional taxes.
>
> Americans are now spending over $5,000 per capita on healthcare, more
> than double what is spent in Canada, or any other country, and that's
> with like 40% of the people not belonging to any health plan. What
> makes you think we would 'spend *AT LEAST* that much in additional
> taxes'?
>
> > >>>> Why is it, then, that every western European nation, plus Canada
and Japan,
> > >>>> spend less per capita on health care than the US yet still cover
everybody?
> > >>>Answer a question with a question. How does your state run health
care
> > >>>system cost less than the current private one?
>
> Because there are no expenses for HMO marketing, competing redundant
> HMO bureaucracies (if you think the government bureaucracy is bad
> you're not familiar with HMOs), huge executive salaries, dividends and
> profits for shareholders, money to cover investment losses (a big
> factor in the current sudden rise in insurance costs, or didn't you
> know that that's what insurance companies and HMOs do with your
> money?); because providers don't have to spend significant chunks of
> their highly expensive time filling out various and sundry varieties
> of reimbursement forms; because there are no random deliberate or
> accidental routine nonpayments of bills that should be paid, requiring
> a repeat of the reimbursement process; because a huge health plan has
> the market muscle to wrestle low charges from providers, who then
> charge correspondingly more for smaller plans and charge the maximum
> for individuals paying out of pocket. (Or did you have no idea the
> discount your health plan, if you have one, gets from the amount you
> see on your hospital bill?)
> Of course, that explains why Medicare gets the lowest rates in the US,
> and is one of the most successful plans in terms of patient
> satisfaction, as well as being the only health plan in the US whose
> members get care that's at or near the top rank of the industrialized
> nations. Ironic, because of course it is, of course, state-run
> healthcare.
>
> > >> Because all the examples we have of state-run health care say it
would.
> > >> Economy of scale, negotiation for lower prices, preventative care
instead of
> > >> waiting until the person becomes sick -- all these and other factors.
> > >
> > >So your answer is we would save money through the reduced quality of
care.
> > >I suggest you gain some experience with how government price controls
> > >have a negative impact on care, at least with regards to how it works
> > >in the USA.
> > >
> > >
> > Again, I refer you to all the data which shows people in Canada and
western
> > Europe are healthier and live longer.
>
> >And naturally this has absolutely nothing to do with lifestyle, food
> choices,
> >relative scarcity of obesity, and regular excercise as part of the
> daily
> >routine. Nope, it must only because of state run health care.
>
> Well, yeah, good to see it's dawning on you.
> The famous JAMA 7/26/2000 paper points out that the US doesn't have
> such bad habits as to put it at the bottom of the barrel for health
> care outcomes; we're the 5th best and 3rd best for smoking for females
> and males, 5th best for alcohol consumption, fifth best in consumption
> of animal fats and third best for cholesterol level, for instance. And
> deaths from unnatural causes, like getting shot or car accidents, are
> not included. So, if we rank at the bottom of healthcare measures of
> quality without ranking at the bottom for lifestyle causes, it's hard
> to escape the implication that we are just not getting the best or
> most appropriate care, regardless of price.
> But enough about me and what I know; what evidence do you have that
> you are getting the best care in the industrialized world, or even
> average care for the industrialized world, other than your deep-seated
> belief that anything else would be just too unthinkable to even
> consider?
#7018
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
Why is this ---- in the car groups?
"z" <gzuckier@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:b5b4685f.0312061421.24c3bc71@posting.google.c om...
> Greg (greg@greg.greg) wrote:
> Subject: Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about
> safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
>
> >Lloyd Parker wrote:
> >> >>>>>> Yeah, it'd be terrible if everybody were covered and we
> spent less on >health
> >> >>>>>> care, as Europe, Canada, and Japan do, wouldn't it?
> Terrible for >insurance
> >> >>>>>> companies, drug companies, HMOs, etc, that is.
> > >>>>>How would we spend "less on health care" ? Instead of paying for
health
> > >>>>>insurance we would pay *AT LEAST* that much in additional taxes.
>
> Americans are now spending over $5,000 per capita on healthcare, more
> than double what is spent in Canada, or any other country, and that's
> with like 40% of the people not belonging to any health plan. What
> makes you think we would 'spend *AT LEAST* that much in additional
> taxes'?
>
> > >>>> Why is it, then, that every western European nation, plus Canada
and Japan,
> > >>>> spend less per capita on health care than the US yet still cover
everybody?
> > >>>Answer a question with a question. How does your state run health
care
> > >>>system cost less than the current private one?
>
> Because there are no expenses for HMO marketing, competing redundant
> HMO bureaucracies (if you think the government bureaucracy is bad
> you're not familiar with HMOs), huge executive salaries, dividends and
> profits for shareholders, money to cover investment losses (a big
> factor in the current sudden rise in insurance costs, or didn't you
> know that that's what insurance companies and HMOs do with your
> money?); because providers don't have to spend significant chunks of
> their highly expensive time filling out various and sundry varieties
> of reimbursement forms; because there are no random deliberate or
> accidental routine nonpayments of bills that should be paid, requiring
> a repeat of the reimbursement process; because a huge health plan has
> the market muscle to wrestle low charges from providers, who then
> charge correspondingly more for smaller plans and charge the maximum
> for individuals paying out of pocket. (Or did you have no idea the
> discount your health plan, if you have one, gets from the amount you
> see on your hospital bill?)
> Of course, that explains why Medicare gets the lowest rates in the US,
> and is one of the most successful plans in terms of patient
> satisfaction, as well as being the only health plan in the US whose
> members get care that's at or near the top rank of the industrialized
> nations. Ironic, because of course it is, of course, state-run
> healthcare.
>
> > >> Because all the examples we have of state-run health care say it
would.
> > >> Economy of scale, negotiation for lower prices, preventative care
instead of
> > >> waiting until the person becomes sick -- all these and other factors.
> > >
> > >So your answer is we would save money through the reduced quality of
care.
> > >I suggest you gain some experience with how government price controls
> > >have a negative impact on care, at least with regards to how it works
> > >in the USA.
> > >
> > >
> > Again, I refer you to all the data which shows people in Canada and
western
> > Europe are healthier and live longer.
>
> >And naturally this has absolutely nothing to do with lifestyle, food
> choices,
> >relative scarcity of obesity, and regular excercise as part of the
> daily
> >routine. Nope, it must only because of state run health care.
>
> Well, yeah, good to see it's dawning on you.
> The famous JAMA 7/26/2000 paper points out that the US doesn't have
> such bad habits as to put it at the bottom of the barrel for health
> care outcomes; we're the 5th best and 3rd best for smoking for females
> and males, 5th best for alcohol consumption, fifth best in consumption
> of animal fats and third best for cholesterol level, for instance. And
> deaths from unnatural causes, like getting shot or car accidents, are
> not included. So, if we rank at the bottom of healthcare measures of
> quality without ranking at the bottom for lifestyle causes, it's hard
> to escape the implication that we are just not getting the best or
> most appropriate care, regardless of price.
> But enough about me and what I know; what evidence do you have that
> you are getting the best care in the industrialized world, or even
> average care for the industrialized world, other than your deep-seated
> belief that anything else would be just too unthinkable to even
> consider?
"z" <gzuckier@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:b5b4685f.0312061421.24c3bc71@posting.google.c om...
> Greg (greg@greg.greg) wrote:
> Subject: Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about
> safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
>
> >Lloyd Parker wrote:
> >> >>>>>> Yeah, it'd be terrible if everybody were covered and we
> spent less on >health
> >> >>>>>> care, as Europe, Canada, and Japan do, wouldn't it?
> Terrible for >insurance
> >> >>>>>> companies, drug companies, HMOs, etc, that is.
> > >>>>>How would we spend "less on health care" ? Instead of paying for
health
> > >>>>>insurance we would pay *AT LEAST* that much in additional taxes.
>
> Americans are now spending over $5,000 per capita on healthcare, more
> than double what is spent in Canada, or any other country, and that's
> with like 40% of the people not belonging to any health plan. What
> makes you think we would 'spend *AT LEAST* that much in additional
> taxes'?
>
> > >>>> Why is it, then, that every western European nation, plus Canada
and Japan,
> > >>>> spend less per capita on health care than the US yet still cover
everybody?
> > >>>Answer a question with a question. How does your state run health
care
> > >>>system cost less than the current private one?
>
> Because there are no expenses for HMO marketing, competing redundant
> HMO bureaucracies (if you think the government bureaucracy is bad
> you're not familiar with HMOs), huge executive salaries, dividends and
> profits for shareholders, money to cover investment losses (a big
> factor in the current sudden rise in insurance costs, or didn't you
> know that that's what insurance companies and HMOs do with your
> money?); because providers don't have to spend significant chunks of
> their highly expensive time filling out various and sundry varieties
> of reimbursement forms; because there are no random deliberate or
> accidental routine nonpayments of bills that should be paid, requiring
> a repeat of the reimbursement process; because a huge health plan has
> the market muscle to wrestle low charges from providers, who then
> charge correspondingly more for smaller plans and charge the maximum
> for individuals paying out of pocket. (Or did you have no idea the
> discount your health plan, if you have one, gets from the amount you
> see on your hospital bill?)
> Of course, that explains why Medicare gets the lowest rates in the US,
> and is one of the most successful plans in terms of patient
> satisfaction, as well as being the only health plan in the US whose
> members get care that's at or near the top rank of the industrialized
> nations. Ironic, because of course it is, of course, state-run
> healthcare.
>
> > >> Because all the examples we have of state-run health care say it
would.
> > >> Economy of scale, negotiation for lower prices, preventative care
instead of
> > >> waiting until the person becomes sick -- all these and other factors.
> > >
> > >So your answer is we would save money through the reduced quality of
care.
> > >I suggest you gain some experience with how government price controls
> > >have a negative impact on care, at least with regards to how it works
> > >in the USA.
> > >
> > >
> > Again, I refer you to all the data which shows people in Canada and
western
> > Europe are healthier and live longer.
>
> >And naturally this has absolutely nothing to do with lifestyle, food
> choices,
> >relative scarcity of obesity, and regular excercise as part of the
> daily
> >routine. Nope, it must only because of state run health care.
>
> Well, yeah, good to see it's dawning on you.
> The famous JAMA 7/26/2000 paper points out that the US doesn't have
> such bad habits as to put it at the bottom of the barrel for health
> care outcomes; we're the 5th best and 3rd best for smoking for females
> and males, 5th best for alcohol consumption, fifth best in consumption
> of animal fats and third best for cholesterol level, for instance. And
> deaths from unnatural causes, like getting shot or car accidents, are
> not included. So, if we rank at the bottom of healthcare measures of
> quality without ranking at the bottom for lifestyle causes, it's hard
> to escape the implication that we are just not getting the best or
> most appropriate care, regardless of price.
> But enough about me and what I know; what evidence do you have that
> you are getting the best care in the industrialized world, or even
> average care for the industrialized world, other than your deep-seated
> belief that anything else would be just too unthinkable to even
> consider?
#7019
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety canbe misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
Why is this ---- in the car groups?
"Bill Funk" <bfunk33@pipping.com> wrote in message
news:4tl4tv8r0suoe4arke323b2185bdqlsele@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 05 Dec 2003 23:33:26 -0500, Bill Putney <bputney@kinez.net>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >"C. E. White" wrote:
> >
> >> Lesbian couples can even have children.
> >
> >Technically, no. There has to be a real ----- involved somewhere.
>
> If, by "have" you mean "beget", you're right.
> However, couples that can't beget children can still have children in
> their family.
> --
> Bill Funk
> replace "g" with "a"
"Bill Funk" <bfunk33@pipping.com> wrote in message
news:4tl4tv8r0suoe4arke323b2185bdqlsele@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 05 Dec 2003 23:33:26 -0500, Bill Putney <bputney@kinez.net>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >"C. E. White" wrote:
> >
> >> Lesbian couples can even have children.
> >
> >Technically, no. There has to be a real ----- involved somewhere.
>
> If, by "have" you mean "beget", you're right.
> However, couples that can't beget children can still have children in
> their family.
> --
> Bill Funk
> replace "g" with "a"
#7020
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety canbe misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
Why is this ---- in the car groups?
"Bill Funk" <bfunk33@pipping.com> wrote in message
news:4tl4tv8r0suoe4arke323b2185bdqlsele@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 05 Dec 2003 23:33:26 -0500, Bill Putney <bputney@kinez.net>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >"C. E. White" wrote:
> >
> >> Lesbian couples can even have children.
> >
> >Technically, no. There has to be a real ----- involved somewhere.
>
> If, by "have" you mean "beget", you're right.
> However, couples that can't beget children can still have children in
> their family.
> --
> Bill Funk
> replace "g" with "a"
"Bill Funk" <bfunk33@pipping.com> wrote in message
news:4tl4tv8r0suoe4arke323b2185bdqlsele@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 05 Dec 2003 23:33:26 -0500, Bill Putney <bputney@kinez.net>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >"C. E. White" wrote:
> >
> >> Lesbian couples can even have children.
> >
> >Technically, no. There has to be a real ----- involved somewhere.
>
> If, by "have" you mean "beget", you're right.
> However, couples that can't beget children can still have children in
> their family.
> --
> Bill Funk
> replace "g" with "a"