Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers

  • Thread starter Dianelos Georgoudis
  • Start date
This site contains affiliate links for which LandyZone may be compensated if you make a purchase.
In article <[email protected]>,
Bill Funk <[email protected]> wrote:
>On Thu, 04 Dec 03 10:19:48 GMT, [email protected] (Lloyd Parker)
>wrote:
>
>>In article <[email protected]>,
>> Bill Funk <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>On Wed, 03 Dec 03 10:56:52 GMT, [email protected] (Lloyd Parker)
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>>You're free to pay for their healthcare any time you want. But what
>>>>>idiot believes that they have the right to reach into my pocket and take
>>>>>what is mine (it's called stealing). So - really - who is preventing
>>>>>you and anyone who feels that way from paying for the treatment of these
>>>>>people? You have that right, as do I - but by freedom of will - not by
>>>>>confiscation.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>It's called living in a society. Society has the right to compel you to
pay
>>>>taxes, and it's the height of idiocy to call it stealing or theft. If you
>>>>don't want to live in a society, you can leave. Nobody's keeping you
here.
>>>
>>>That assumes that all taxes are for legimitate purposes.
>>>And that's hardly the case.
>>>
>>And you get to decide that? Sorry, that would be anarchy. In our society,
>>our elected government decides that.
>
>And you obviously think that makes them OK.
> You might not agree (that's your right), but I do in fact get to
>decide if taxes are all used for legimitate purposes. It's part living
>in a democratic republic.
>Do *YOU* think all taxes go for legimate purposes?
>

Hell no. Missile defense in space, for example. Haliburton contracts in
Iraq, for another. Do I get to decide which ones I don't pay taxes to
support?
 
In article <[email protected]>,
Bill Funk <[email protected]> wrote:
>On Thu, 04 Dec 03 10:25:54 GMT, [email protected] (Lloyd Parker)
>wrote:
>
>>Canada's a democracy; if their health care system is so bad, why haven't the
>>people gotten rid of it? England's is even more socialized, but even the
>>conservative Thatcher realized it was so popular she didn't dare touch it.
>
>It's a truth that one of democracy's worse points is that people, when
>they discover that they can vote themselves something for 'free', will
>do so.
>It's human nature.
>
So you'd prefer, what, a monarchy? A theocracy to impose your religious
beliefs on others?
 
In article <[email protected]>,
Bill Funk <[email protected]> wrote:
>On Thu, 04 Dec 03 10:20:24 GMT, [email protected] (Lloyd Parker)
>wrote:
>
>>In article <[email protected]>,
>> Bill Funk <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>On Wed, 03 Dec 03 10:54:53 GMT, [email protected] (Lloyd Parker)
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>In article <[email protected]>,
>>>> Bill Funk <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>On Tue, 02 Dec 03 15:37:02 GMT, [email protected] (Lloyd Parker)
>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>In article <Us5zb.282500$275.1000782@attbi_s53>,
>>>>>> [email protected] (Brent P) wrote:
>>>>>>>In article <[email protected]>, Lloyd Parker wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Yeah, it'd be terrible if everybody were covered and we spent less on
>>>>>>health
>>>>>>>> care, as Europe, Canada, and Japan do, wouldn't it? Terrible for
>>>>insurance
>>>>>>>> companies, drug companies, HMOs, etc, that is.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>How would we spend "less on health care" ? Instead of paying for health
>>>>>>>insurance we would pay *AT LEAST* that much in additional taxes.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>Why is it, then, that every western European nation, plus Canada and
>>Japan,
>>>>>>spend less per capita on health care than the US yet still cover
>>everybody?
>>>>>
>>>>>Lloyd, you might want to do a Google search on the keywords:
>>>>>canadian health care problems
>>>>>This would let you see reality instead of the utopia your liberal
>>>>>friends promise.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Oh great, he wants me to absorb his right-wing propaganda.
>>>>
>>>>Try this:
>>>>
>>>>http://www-2.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs.cmu.edu/user/clamen/misc/politics/HealthCar
e/
>>Co
>>>>nsumerReports-Sep92.html.gz#Does%20Canada%20Have%20The%20Answer?
>>>
>>>Consumer Reports???
>>>You've GOT to be kidding.
>>>
>>Why is it all the right-wing Taliban here would believe anything an HMO or
>>drug company tells them but reject the main voice for the consumer?
>
>Lloyd, you must be on drugs. The illegal kind.
>CR is "the main voice for the consumer"??

Yes.

>Where did you get that from??

Common sense, the fact that consumer columns and consumer shows always cite
them...

I guess you buy into "whatever a business says, shut up and take it"?

>No wonder you're the laughing stock you are.



>Anytime you want to step out of that ivory tower you live in and join
>the real world, you're welcome. Be prepared for a shock, though.
>
 
In article <[email protected]>,
Bill Putney <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>Lloyd Parker wrote:
>
>> In article <[email protected]>,
>> Bill Putney <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >Lloyd Parker wrote:
>> >> It's called living in a society. Society has the right to compel you to
>> pay
>> >> taxes, and it's the height of idiocy to call it stealing or theft...
>> >
>> >You're thinking of a pure democracy without any Consitutional
>> >protections, wherein if 50.0000000001% of the people vote to confiscate
>> >your property, then it's legal for them to do so. Society, under a
>> >constituional republic, can only tax to the degree that their
>> >constitution allows them to.
>>
>> OK, show me anywhere the US constitution caps taxes.
>>
>> I'm waiting....
>
>Who said anything about capping taxes - how about the purposes to which
they're
>put - but you knew that.

"Provide for the general welfare and the common defence" -- now I'd argue
giving billions of dollars to companies that Cheney used to work for don't
fall into either of these, but having a healthy populace sure would.

>
>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! =-----
 
In article <[email protected]>, Greg <[email protected]> wrote:
>Lloyd Parker wrote:
>
>> In article <[email protected]>, Greg <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >Lloyd Parker wrote:
>> >
>> >> In article <[email protected]>,
>> >> "David J. Allen" <dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >"Brent P" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> >> >news:NHTyb.384552$HS4.3166098@attbi_s01...
>> >> >> In article <[email protected]>, Bill Putney wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> > I think z would go for the California model for "conservation"
wherein
>> >> >> > you legally ban the building of power generation facilities, then,
>> when
>> >> >> > the demand far outstrips the supply capacity, the price for energy
>> goes
>> >> >> > up so high that everyone turns their a.c. off because they can't
>> afford
>> >> >> > to run them - everybody wins because, once again, everyone is
forced
>> >> >> > down to the same level of misery - equality achieved at last. Oh
one
>> >> >> > catch - the people responsible aren't even allowed to finish out
their
>> >> >> > term due to the anger of the recipients of the benevolence of the
>> >> >> > government.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> You forgot the best aspect. The rich elites can still afford the
>> >> >> higher rates and can keep their AC on without any supply problems.
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >Reminds me of my experience in a country a few years ago that had
"free"
>> >> >(i.e., rationed) medical care for all. The demand for care
outstripped
>> the
>> >> >supply and the only people who got decent medical care were the people
>> with
>> >> >money, who could pay for a private doctor. Everyone else had to go
wait
>> in
>> >> >line at the clinic and hope for decent care.
>> >>
>> >> As opposed to here, where if you don't have insurance, or aren't rich,
you
>> >> either go bankrupt or do without any care?
>> >
>> >Again Lloyd, not true, except perhaps in your alternate reality, where
>> (unnamed)
>> >people in this group are Taliban that stone women for learning to read and
>> shoot
>> >as US troops . Hospitals may not turn people away for care by law.
>> >
>> Only in an emergency is a hospital required to treat anybody, and as soon
as
>> they're "stable" they can be turned out. Need dialysis? No hospital is
>> required to do that for free, for example.
>
>Dialysis patients get low-cost or free dialysis from medical centers (this
>procedure need not be done at a hospital) every day.
>
>
If there's one nearby and it voluntarily does that. That doesn't cover
everybody.
 
In article <[email protected]>,
Bill Funk <[email protected]> wrote:
>On Thu, 04 Dec 03 10:19:03 GMT, [email protected] (Lloyd Parker)
>wrote:
>
>>But there are no tax benefits to "civil unions", no inheritance benefits, no
>>insurance benefits, etc.
>
>You've never heard of common law marriage?
>
Most states don't recognize that anymore.
 
In article <[email protected]>,
"The Ancient One" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>"Brandon Sommerville" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> On Thu, 4 Dec 2003 13:16:23 -0500, "The Ancient One"
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> >And yet the exodus from Canada to the US for treatment continues
>unabaited.
>> >To be so bad here it is amazing that so many come here from so many
>> >countries, giving up free care for prompt, high quality care here. You
>get
>> >reallly sick there, you get a tumor that requires immediate surgery, but
>the
>> >system is over budget and you're put on a six to twelve month waiting
>list,
>> >and then we'll see how fast you come running to America for immediate
>> >treatment.
>>
>> It's not quite that simple. If you need a procedure, they evaluate
>> how urgent it is. If it's extremely urgent you get bumped to the top
>> of the list. If it's not so urgent, you get on the waiting list and
>> get done after others who have been waiting longer are processed. If
>> you don't want to wait and can afford it, you go to somewhere that you
>> can pay for the procedure, which is down south. A great system if
>> you're wealthy.
>>
>> I know that no matter what happens, if I blow out my knee I'm going to
>> get an MRI. It may take 8 weeks, but I'll get it and it won't cost me
>> anything extra. Can you say the same thing?
>
>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,

How long would he have waited here if he were poor or had no insurance? He
wouldn't have even had the routine physical, and you know it.

>considering he was outwardly healthy and active. Would he have lived that
>long? How could he have been sure?
>I know if I need medical treatment I can get it, NOW, now later. To me, that
>is important. I really don't care how Canada does it, if you're happy great.
>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.
>
>
 
In article <[email protected]>,
Bill Funk <[email protected]> wrote:
>On Thu, 04 Dec 03 10:09:39 GMT, [email protected] (Lloyd Parker)
>wrote:
>
>>Besides, if the gov't pays for health care instead of the employer, that's
>>reducing the costs to the employer.
>
>I guess taxes don't count as a cost.
>
When Europe pays less for health care per capita, that would reduce employer
expenses.
 
In article <[email protected]>,
Bill Funk <[email protected]> wrote:
>On Thu, 04 Dec 03 10:23:56 GMT, [email protected] (Lloyd Parker)
>wrote:
>
>>>Marriage, in our culture (Judeo/Christian) has been historically
>>
>>But the US government, not being JudeoChristian or any religion, should not
>>reflect religious bias, should it?
>
>Depends on how you look at it.
>The government is made up of 'the people'.
>Those people's lives are, at least in part, shaped by their religion.
>To expect their government to be completely divorced from that
>religion (whatever religion it is, or even the combination of
>religions it is here) is being unrealistic. It's asking the people to
>ignore what they believe in.

Or asking them to not force others to live like the majority wants. You seem
to be advocating the Taliban style of government -- those who are in power get
to enforce their religious beliefs on everybody else.

>
>It is a goal of our government, at this time, to attempt to divorce
>itself from all religion. Is that good?
>How can we expect our government to come up with laws that have no
>base? No anchor at all? How can we possibly expect to base our laws on
>the human experience, and then expect to deny a large part of that
>experience?
>
>I'm not proposing a theocracy, but I do think that trying to deny all
>religious beliefs is simply impossible, and, as such, should be
>recognized.
>
 
In article <[email protected]>,
Bill Funk <[email protected]> wrote:
>On Thu, 04 Dec 2003 09:50:40 -0500, Jenn Wasdyke
><[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>> So change the codification slightly. Instead of specifying that it's
>>> a man and woman specify that it's two people. Problem solved, no
>>> other laws need to be changed.
>>
>>Why should it be only two people? If three consenting people wish to be
>>married, why discriminate against them?
>
>I think that's already covered.
>Such unions are called 'corporations'. :)
>
Except instead of screwing each other, they screw everybody else.
 
In article <[email protected]>,
Bill Putney <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>Lloyd Parker wrote:
>>
>> In article <[email protected]>,
>> Bill Putney <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >...You elevate above the authority of the U.S. government in our own
>> >country the authority of an organization (the U.N.) that signed
>> >under-the-table agreements with international gay rights organizations
>> >to endorse and support NAMBLA (an organization that promotes and
>> >aggressively fights to legalize pedophilia the world over), only to be
>> >stopped by the U.S. Congress' officially adopting a resolution to stop
>> >paying its dues until its endorsement and support of such organizations
>> >ceased.
>>
>> Flat-out lie.
>
>Oh yeah? Read it and weap:
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Lesbian_and_Gay_Association
>Here's another good one: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NAMBLA
>
>A matter of public record - part of the Congressional record, no doubt.
>You wanna dispute that?
>
>I suppose you'll say that the Wikipedia is run by a right wing
>organization.

If you cited it, must be. Why not cite, oh, a NEWS organization? Or the UN
itself?


>Notice how many times on the article it says that right
>wing groups and politicians opposed the goings on of the gay community
>in the situation - not once does it mention liberals as being
>particularly outspoken about the UN's endorsement of such groups (and
>the gay rights orgs. only acted when they saw that the publicity was
>damaging their other "more palatable" causes).

Why would liberals be outspoken about the UN endorsing gay rights groups?

>
>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! =-----
 
In article <sROzb.23583$o9.848@fed1read07>,
"Nick N" <[email protected]> wrote:
>Lloyd parker [email protected] started this mess. See
>http://tinyurl.com/xrz7 for a look at over 55 thousand messages. To this
>day, probably two months later, him and other people are keeping this way OT
>thread alive and clogging our newsgroups with THOUSANDS of messages. It is
>time to kill this or take it elsewhere!
>Lloyd has already being reported to his university and the other people who
>keep posting multiple times are also slowly being reported to their
>according abuse@ addresses. for example, abuse@mci abuse@umich abuse@rogers
>(you know who you are) and a few others. We at Jeep+willys newsgroup are
>fed up and fighting back. I would guess many people are going to start
>having isp problems unless they quit this abuse. On the other hand, I have
>no problem if they just start maybe a yahoo group or someplace they can
>argue tell their blue. Steve, I don't know what newsgroup you originate
>from but I appreciate your interest and support.
>Nick
>


Nick, I hit "reply" because it's so faster than going up and editing the
newsgroups field. Why don't you go back to the original message in this
thread and complain to (and about) the person who first posted it to your
newsgroup?
 
Mike Romain wrote:
> Please stop abusing groups with your cross posts.
>
> Mike
>


Dear Mike:

I, personally, don't see this as abuse. We are bringing together people
from different groups on a topic that is obviously interesting to those
participating.

I cannot tell which groups the people whom are participating are working
from, so I respond to all groups.

So, I'll continue until someone is able to identify all of the
participants home group.

I'm at r.a.m.Chrysler

Dan

 
Bill Funk wrote:
> On Thu, 04 Dec 03 10:09:39 GMT, [email protected] (Lloyd Parker)
> wrote:
>
>
>>What does that mean? There are plenty of innovations. Airbus now is outdoing
>>Boeing in orders, for example. Why? Innovative ideas.
>
>
> Sure.
> Like Britain, France & Germany giving economic incentives (money) to
> their airlines to buy Airbus.
> That's on top of the economic incentives those governments gave to
> Airbus (subsidies) to help Airbus products.
> Boeing doesn't get such help. They have to sell their products on
> merit.
>

Bwahahahahahahahaha

Only an American would believe that the US is subsidy free. Take a look
from outside the fishbowl for a change.

Dan

 
Bill Funk wrote:
> On Thu, 04 Dec 2003 12:55:00 -0500, Dan Gates
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>>Let me just add:
>> Can US
>>
>>
>>Infant mortality/ 1,000
>>live births 5 7
>>
>>Prob. of dying/1,000
>>Age 5, Males 6 8
>>Age 5, Females 5 8
>>
>>Age 15-59, Males 104 148
>>Age 15-59, Females 59 85
>
>
> Point out, while you're at it, that these figures say absolutely
> nothing about health care, one way or another.
>


They certainly must, because to listen to any number of Americans, life
is so tough up here what with the cold and snow and the high taxes and
the low dollar and the poor productivity and the poor democracy, our
lives are much harder to live, we should have much poorer life expectancies.

The figures cited are pretty standard measures of health care efficacy.
Since the US and Canada are so similar, demographically, health care
must be the difference.

Dan

 
Bill Funk wrote:
> On Thu, 04 Dec 2003 12:30:46 -0500, Dan Gates
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>>Lets compare, shall we?
>> Can. US
>>Life expectancy at birth? 82.7 66.9
>
>
> http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/lifexpec.htm
> http://www.retirelink.com/education/LifeExpectancy.html
> http://www.who.int/inf-pr-2000/en/pr2000-life.html
> http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0005148.html
>
> Google shows much more of the same.
> Where did 66.9 come from?
>


I explained earlier that I was reading the incorrect Appendix, which
appears to have a different base value.

Sorry


 

"Lloyd Parker" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>,
> "The Ancient One" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >"David J. Allen" <dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote in message
> >news:[email protected]...
> >>
> >> "Daniel J. Stern" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >> news:p[email protected]...
> >> > On Wed, 3 Dec 2003, Bill Putney wrote:
> >> >
> >> > > Canada's healthcare system sucks.
> >> >
> >> > I daresay you don't know what you're talking about. I'm an American
> >living
> >> > here in Canada, and guess what? Canada's healthcare system is
*vastly*
> >> > better than the US system in the vast majority of cases. Are there
> >> > exceptions? Surely. There's no such thing as perfection. But the
> >Canadian
> >> > system does a much better job of handling most of the healthcare
needs
> >of
> >> > most of the people at a reasonable cost.
> >> >
> >> > DS
> >> >
> >>
> >> That's great. My experience in a French system was that it did fine
for
> >> everyday stuff: bandages, pain killers, antibiotics. Even then it
could
> >be
> >> a littel scary depending on the doctor you see. I was in an accident
and
> >> hurt my hand and wrist. No big deal, but I was rushed to the hospital
in
> >a
> >> scary ambulance ride (for sprain wrist!) and then when I got there,
they
> >> took my vitals and then took care of my hand. All went well enough
until
> >> the doctor saw my pulse rate. She thought is was too slow, dangerously
> >so,
> >> and so perscribed some pills (in a plastic bag) to speed my heart up.
> >When
> >> I got home I promply threw them away. I think my heart rate was in the
> >> 50's, which is not too slow. I felt great. No different than I ever
did.
> >>
> >> A friend of mine had a more serious condition and even though he had
the
> >> money to see a private doctor, went to the clinic. He went home in a
box
> >> because they didn't misdiagnosed his condition.
> >>
> >> The problem was, in my view, that the best doctors wouldn't come near
the
> >> socialized system, which paid poorly and rationed care. You cannot
avoid
> >> the trade-offs of a socialized system and a private competitive system.
A
> >> private system will leave some behind. A socialized system will give
> >> everyone less quality and quantity overall. It's true with any
"product".
> >
> >For a local example just look at the VA hospitals.
> >
> >
> Ask any veteran if he or she would give that up. Please. Then duck.

My Dad was a Veteran Lloyd, he died because the VA cared more about slashing
costs than providing quality care. Easier, and cheaper, to make an off the
shoulder diagnosis than to run expensive tests. When he was admitted for
pnuemonia they finally decided to run some test to see what was causing it
and found he was riddled with cancer, which any good hospital would have
detected years earlier. He died 8 days later, at home, even though he begged
them to let him stay in the hospital. Hospital beds cost money, and they had
to cut costs, so a dying man was sent home. That is the kind of low quality,
one kind treats all health system you want Lloyd, and it stinks. Now shut up
and stop posting your lies and crap on this or any group.


 
In article <[email protected]>, Greg <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>Lloyd Parker wrote:
>
>> In article <[email protected]>, Greg <[email protected]> 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?
 
In article <[email protected]>, Greg <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>Bill Funk wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 03 Dec 03 10:46:25 GMT, [email protected] (Lloyd Parker)
>> wrote:
>>
>> >In article <[email protected]>, Steve <[email protected]>
wrote:
>> >>Greg wrote:
>> >>
>> >>> Lloyd Parker wrote:
>> >>
>> >>>>
>> >>>>>"new source" creation, which was contrary to the actual written law.
>> >>>>
>> >>>>Wrong. They started treating major modifications as new sources, which
was
>> >>>>exactly what the law allowed (and required).
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> MAJOR modifications. Not minor improvements which would INCREASE
>> >efficiency, such
>> >>> as a new version of wear items such as turbine blades.
>> >>>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>EXACTLY. Clinton policy = NO MODIFICATIONS!! Not even improvements to an
>> >>old plant that would be better than doing nothing.
>> >
>> >Because the Clean Air Act only exempts _maintenance_ not _modifications_.
>>
>> I see.
>> So making it BETTER brings on penalties, but keeping it dirty is OK?
>> How is this supposed to clean up the air?
>
>The special llogic magic takes care of that. See cleaning the air obviously
isn't
>important to Lloyd, no matter how much he'll claim otherwise, because he
favors
>perverse inventives of treating parts replacments as "substrantial
modifications"
>Instead it's what he feels that manners--not the real world. .
>
No, of course, utility company profits are more important than children and
grandparents dying of respiratory illness. Every good right-wing
fundamentalist knows that.
 
In article <[email protected]>,
"The Ancient One" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>"Brandon Sommerville" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> On Thu, 4 Dec 2003 19:41:18 -0500, "The Ancient One"
>> <[email protected]> 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.
>
>
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

S
Defenders Vs Insurers tomfoolery
Replies
1
Views
4K
lightning
lightning
300bhp/ton
Driven: New Defender - On & Off Road. Is it a Pretender?
2
Replies
30
Views
6K
lightning
lightning
P
Range Rover P38 EKA and BeCM Lockout
Replies
6
Views
5K
Doolinjames
D
natas
Hurricane Dorian survivor.
Replies
8
Views
2K
ProjectX
ProjectX
Alibro
How to recondition a VCU yourself.
15 16 17
Replies
325
Views
46K
Alibro
Alibro
Back
Top