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.
X-no-archive: yes

Lloyd Parker wrote:

> 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.

Strawman.

> Every good right-wing
> fundamentalist knows that.

I'm sure YOUR house isn't connected to the grid. The grid which is powered by
those awful fuel burning, atom splitting, and even those chamber of horrors
windmills! No, I'll bet your lights, precious air conditioner, and computer are
specially powered by an unlimited supply of hot air emitted from its owner,
right?

 
Lloyd Parker wrote:

> In article <[email protected]>, Greg <[email protected]> wrote:
> >Lloyd Parker wrote:
> >
> >> >> >> ?This
> >> >> >> >had the perverse incentive of indicating to plant owners that
> routine
> >> >> >> maintenance is a BAD IDEA to
> >> >> >> >do, because the Government will come after you for doing it. Better
> to
> >> >> defer
> >> >> >> maintenance and not
> >> >> >> >keep plants in the most effiicent manner they can be reasonably
> >> operated
> >> >> in.
> >> >> >> But the effect of
> >> >> >> >this is that when routine maintenance and minor upgrades become to
> >> >> expensive
> >> >> >> because of overzealous
> >> >> >> >regulation, the effect is that nothing is done and instead the most
> >> >> polluting
> >> >> >> plants are left in
> >> >> >> >operation as is, with no improvements all. The WSJ has reported
> >> >> extensively
> >> >> >> on this, and
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> The WSJ never met an environmental reg it liked, because it never met
> a
> >> >> >> corporate profit it didn't want increased.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >What on earth are you babbling about? You can't make your argument
> with
> >> >> actual
> >> >> >facts, so you attack/smear the messenger.
> >> >>
> >> >> I suggest you cite some source other than one rabidly pro-business to
> have
> >> any
> >> >> credibility.
> >> >
> >> >The only sources that appears to have credibility with you is the Sierra
> Club
> >> and
> >> >Consumer Reports. Furthermore your slam against WSJ is false and you
> cannot
> >> >substantiate it.
> >>
> >> As I said, a newspaper that is avowedly pro-business
> >
> >To use a word that even you can comprehend: Liar. More on point, you couldn't
> even
> >try to substantiate your silly slanders. Yes, that's why Daniel Pearl was
> killed,
> >Parker, because he was running around the world championing business for WSJ.
> The
> >WSJ has been railing about improper business practices for over a century.
> They
> >reported the details of Enron when other publications couldn't even explain
> the
> >basics of the scandal. Its writers even published an in depth book in
> addition to
> >their newspaper articles. Recently they have been documented questionable
> >practices by the alcohol industry. Their description of the recent mutual
> fund
> >scandals hasn't been "pro business" at all, but has exposed the improper
> >activities of business and put it in the spotlight. When the former leader
> of
> >Tyco stole company funds to host extravagant parties in Sardinia, he told his
> >staff to keep it quiet so it he wouldn't "read about it on the front page of
> the
> >Wall Street Journal". Which is exactly where that scandal was printed.
> >
> >> cannot be considered an
> >> objective source.
> >
> >So in other words even you can't defend Clinton EPA's horrid record with
> actually
> >following the written statue, so you attack the messenger. Back to the
> earlier
> >topic, the Clean Air Act only requires "Best Available Control Technlogy
> (BACT)
> >for new sources. Old plants undergoing mere maintenance don't meet the
> >"substantial modification" requirement of the actual law.
>
> Depends on how extensive the changes are, which is why the EPA sued, and which
> is why a number of utilities settled with the EPA.
>
> >
> >To quote the article,
> >
> > "Consider a 1997 strategy memo stamped
> > "ENFORCEMENT/SENSITIVE" in which EPA staffers complain
> > that "30 year old power plants are operating longer
> > and more efficiently than ever." Rather than respond
> > to any evidence of wrongdoing, they propose to
> > "identify a manageable number of facilities (25) that
> > appear particularly deserving of . . . scrutiny." In
> > sum: "Our intent is to investigate this industry in a
> > way quite different [emphasis added] from earlier,
> > more traditional, inspections."
> >
> > In a 1999 document -- an account of a meeting attended
> > by EPA and Justice Department officials -- an EPA
> > representative notes the extent to which "the
> > Administrator [Ms. Browner] is `emotionally and
> > professionally' invested in these cases." The official
> > notes that "the latest NSR proposals are `way greener'
> > than before," and apparently aware of the scrutiny the
> > change will draw, warns the others "do not use e-mail
> > for anything you might not want a congressman or a
> > magistrate to see."
> >
> >Yup, that's sure an EPA on the up-and-up. It continues,
>
> Yeah, sure, like the WSJ is believable on this.
>
> If this is so bad, quote from CNN, or ABC, or NY Times, or some source not a
> business cheerleader.
>
> >
> > An agency manual on "How to Investigate and Prepare a
> > PSD/NSR Case," meanwhile, contains this charming
> > political suggestion: "Depositions are open to the
> > public. Bring lots of people on your side. This can be
> > very intimidating."
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> > Try actually reading the WSJ for once
> >> >> >in your life and you would know that you are wrong as when you said
> that
> >> >> Daimler
> >> >> >Chrysler was the only foreign company listed on the New York Stock
> >> Exchange,
> >> >> as if
> >> >> >Sony of Japan (NYSE:SNE) or Deutsch Bank AG (NYSE: DB) and others
> >> didn't
> >> >> even
> >> >> >exist!
> >> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >> You're confusing ADRs with actual shares of stock.
> >> >
> >> >Many non companies (inclding American Depostitary Receipt) are LISTED on
> the
> >> New
> >> >York Stock Exchange and trade like any other stock, contrary to your phony
> >> claim
> >> >that only DCX is listed on NYSE. Global Shares are no less listed on the
> >> NYSE
> >> >than ADPs.
> >>
> >> OK, DB is now on the NYSE, but:
> >
> >> "Deutsche Bank started trading it's Global Registered Shares on the New
> York
> >> Stock Exchange on Wednesday, 3 October 2001." (from the DB web site)
> >>
> >> So at the time of the merger, DC was the only such company listed there.
> >
> >Wrong. Many companies were listed on NYSE long before DCX existed.
>
> Did you read what the NYSE itself said? I posted it. All that was there
> earlier were ADRs.

NYSE ADRs are listed on NYSE by definition! And not only are you wrong now, you
also said that "DC stock *IS* still listed on the NYSE, as is no other stock of
a company not headquartered in the US. <emphasis added> Wrong again, Lloyd.

>
>
> >But earlier
> >you said, ""DC stock is still listed on the NYSE, as is no other stock of a
> >company not headquartered in the US." You're waffling, but your waffle is
> wrong
> >too.
> >
> >>
> >>
> >> "DaimlerChrysler (NYSE: DCX), the first company to trade as a global share
> in
> >> 18 countries simultaneously..." --
> >> http://www.nyse.com/content/articles/1043269646436.html
> >
> >The first "GLOBAL SHARE". Not the first foreign NYSE listed stock, which is
> what
> >you were talking about. Global share is a new entity, but That is like
> saying the
> >first LLC is the first company in the US, even though LLCs have only been
> around
> >for a few years now. Foreign companies have been listed on NYSE long before
> DCX
> >was dreamt of.
> >
>
> Only as ADRs.

Which of course are all LISTED on the NYSE, contrary to your claim!

"DC stock is still listed on the NYSE, as is no other stock of a company not
headquartered in the US


 


"C. E. White" wrote:

> Lesbian couples can even have children.

Technically, no. There has to be a real penis involved somewhere.

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! =-----
 


Lloyd Parker wrote:

> In article <[email protected]>,
> "David J. Allen" <dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote:
> >
> >"Lloyd Parker" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >news:[email protected]...
> >> In article <[email protected]>, Steve <[email protected]>
> >wrote:
> >> >Lloyd Parker wrote:
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >> And the US refusing to buy any military hardware from Airbus isn't a
> >form
> >> of
> >> >> subsidy to Boeing?
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> >Nope. Lockheed, Northrop-Grumman, and even Gulfstream and Cessna are
> >> >free to submit bids also. Its restricting military contracting to US
> >> >companies, and I have no problem with that.
> >> >
> >> It's subsidizing US companies by giving only them government contracts.
> >
> >That's not "subsidizing". Total BS. Boeing competes in the worldwide
> >marketplace and gets no help from the feds.
>
> Just guaranteed profits on all the planes it sells to the defense dept.

If a company in business sells anything to anybody without making a profit, it's
doing something horribly wrong.

>
> Listen to what Sen. McCain has been saying about the huge multi-billion dollar
> lease of tankers to the Air Force by Boeing. Huge profit deal.

Yes, a huge profit deal by leasing, as opposed to selling aircraft where Boeing
wouldn't make a cent. You do realize that Boeing can make money by either
selling OR leasing the planes right? Leasing would benefit the government by
avoiding a one time outlay now for a plane that could otherwise be paid off (and
eventually purchased outright) over time. Just like you lease your Benz, Lloyd.
But if you are stuck with the idea that Boeing is so bad, just remembered who's
been lobbying for this deal. Why it's a chief Boeing lobbyist. And who might
that be? Why Linda Daschle. Hmm, that name sounds familiar.....could it be the
wife of top Democrat Senator Tommy Daschle? You bet your Rent-a-Benz it is. Oh
yes, who else does Mrs. Daschle lobby for? Why United Technologies. Oh yes, the
owner of jet engine manufacturer Pratt & Whitney. The supposed pure Democrats in
bed with big business, and lobbying at that. Even liberal icon President-wannabe
Howie Dean says, ""It's a good idea in general to do something for Boeing."
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/news/archive/2003/08/25/national1743EDT0642.DTL

Naturally, unlike President Bush, the Daschles will NOT make their joint tax
return public.

>
>
> > The defense business is less
> >competitive, but for good reason (security).
> >
> >On the other hand, Airbus has received around $30 billion in member state
> >subsidies since it's inception.
> >
> >
> To get started; it receives nothing now and paid back the earlier ones.

So you admit it got a free start at life through direct subsidies. Oh how
convenient that it paid back some of the earlier cash subsidies AFTER the risk was
assumed. But then again, you still don't think the Chrysler bail-out loan
guarantees were a subsidy because the government assumed the RISK of Chrysler not
repaying. But that's the special PAAP way....Parker Accepted Accounting
Principles.


 


Lloyd Parker wrote:

> In article <[email protected]>,
> "David J. Allen" <dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote:
> >
> >"Lloyd Parker" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >news:[email protected]...
> >> In article <[email protected]>,
> >> "David J. Allen" <dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote:
> >
> >> >Traditional marriage with it's meaningfulness for families (read
> >children)
> >> >serves a meaningful purpose to the benefit of all of us, which is
> >providing
> >> >a stable place for children to be raised to be production members of
> >> >society.
> >>
> >>
> >> So you'd ban marriage between couples if one is infertile? Or too old to
> >have
> >> children? Or simply don't want children?
> >>
> >> It ADDS to society. Gay marriage does what? It allows gay
> >> >couples the benefits of marriage (inheretence, insurance, etc.) but
> >serves
> >> >no other useful purpose to society. And NO I'm NOT arguing against
> >marriage
> >> >for childless couples.
> >>
> >> Yes it does. It provides a stable unit, reduces promiscuity, should
> >reduce
> >> disease transmission, etc.
> >>
> >
> >Wrong. Marriage "produces" none of those things. Moral, committed people
> >do. The existence of childless married couples is irrelevent to the
> >institution of marriage and doesn't change what it is and means to society.
> >Changing marriage from an insitution whose purpose is to nurture and protect
> >families to a grab basket of benefits you want to call "civil rights" is
> >what you're arguing for.
> >
> >> >
> >> >I don't really even buy the argument that there are benefits gay couples
> >> >can't have without marriage. To me, it's part of an agenda to normalize
> >> >gays in society in every way,
> >>
> >> And heaven forbid you Taliban would have to accept everyone as being
> >equal.
> >>
> >
> >Having a little trouble understanding the argument Lloyd? Let me clarify.
> >The gay activist agenda is to redefine and rebuild our whole social
> >structure to abstract out distinction between sexual preference.
>
> The same thing has been said about blacks, Jews, Catholics, women, etc. The
> bigotry doesn't change, it just finds a new group to kick.

Being hetero or homosexual only refers to one's activities. It is not a race, it
is not a sex, it is not a religion, it is not a national origin, and trying to
tack on to the struggle of any of the aforementioned groups is silly.


 


"Daniel J. Stern" wrote:

> On Fri, 5 Dec 2003, Bill Putney wrote:
>
> > The point is simple and clear - you want to re-define the word
> > "marriage" to excercise what you feel are your rights. So why can't
> > others do the same.
>
> Because in my direction, it removes a denial of equal treatment under the
> law that is currently applied to one specific group of people, WITHOUT
> affecting or taking away from those who are currently not denied. In your
> direction, it codifies the denial towards the specific group, for no
> articulable reason more concrete than your alleged discomfort.
>
> DS

But the same could be said of those who would want the right to marry their
dog or their tree (admitedly ridiculous examples, but they illustrate my
point, i.e., those "groups" could complain for the same reasons, or they
could have additional reasons, no less valid in an "everything goes" world,
like you are restricting those things to humans/people, or, say to human
*adults*).

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! =-----
 


Lloyd Parker wrote:

> In article <4g5Ab.431038$HS4.3399802@attbi_s01>,
> [email protected] (Brent P) wrote:
> >In article <[email protected]>,
> Daniel J. Stern wrote:
> >
> >>> You don't have to be elite to get great healthcare in the US.
> >
> >> You have to be able to afford health insurance. Many Americans can't.
> >
> >The question should really be not one of wether canada is better or not,
> >or who can afford the insurance or not. But what is more affordable, the
> >insurance or the taxes that would be applied in a _US government_ run
> >system?
> >
> >Now the person who can afford decent insurance in the USA is woried that
> >he won't be able to afford the taxes for the same or lesser coverage from
> >the government.
>
> But again, since Canada and western Europe spend less per capita for health
> care, why wouldn't that be true here? If everybody's covered, more people get
> preventative care, for example, which is less expensive than waiting to treat
> a sick person. That would also translate into less lost work days for
> businesses. Less turnover of employees too, as benefits wouldn't vary so
> much.

Canada and western Europe have a lot less obesity and a lot more healthy behaviors
too. But that's probably the governments fault that people stuff themselves and
don't exercise. After all the government should be telling us what to do and how
to do it at all times, right?


 
Lloyd Parker wrote:

> In article <[email protected]>, Steve <[email protected]> wrote:
> >Brandon Sommerville wrote:
> >> On Thu, 4 Dec 2003 14:25:36 -0500, "The Ancient One"
> >> <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>Government control of healthcare results in poorer healthcare than private
> >>>control, but then you knew that already.
> >>
> >>
> >> Poorer health care for the elite maybe, but as one of the huddled
> >> masses, I'm grateful that I don't have to worry about a decision
> >> between seeing the doctor and making my mortgage payments.
> >
> >Typical liberal hyperbole.
> >
> >The problem is removal of CHOICE from the individual. You don't have to
> >be elite to get great healthcare in the US.
>
> Easy to say when you're one of the elite.
>
> >And in a health crisis, you
> >have the ability to draw on savings or give up other purchases IF
> >getting immediate top-quality care is a priority for you as an
> >individual.
>
> If you've managed to save. Lots of low-income workers haven't. Their only
> recourse is to lose their house, or go bankrupt perhaps.

Do yourself a favor and read "The Millionaire Next-Door. The Surprising Secrets
of America's Wealthy" by Thomas J. Stanley and William D. Danko. The people
that have built up wealth in this country are also janitors and other lower
income workers. With a little common sense you can do it too. But you
certainly don't do this by activities such as renting cars for the long term.

 


Lloyd Parker wrote:

> In article <[email protected]>,
> "David J. Allen" <dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote:
> >
> >"Lloyd Parker" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >news:[email protected]...
> >> In article <[email protected]>,
> >> Bill Funk <[email protected]> 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.
> >>
> >> Not nowadays. WTO would slap that down.
> >>
> >> >That's on top of the economic incentives those governments gave to
> >> >Airbus (subsidies) to help Airbus products.
> >>
> >> They gave startup subsidies, all of which Airbus paid back, as it was
> >required
> >> to.
> >
> >
> >Now the "subsidies" come in the form of "loans". No, this battle is still
> >being waged.
>
> Airbus receives no state subsidies,

Boeing wouldn't exist if it hadn't been for state subsidies, and it continues to
get guaranteed low interest loans.

> but Boeing has a hugely profitable lease
> deal for tankers with the AF that Sen. McCain calls a rip-off of the
> taxpayers.
>
You're referring to the deal that Linda Daschle, wife of Thomas Daschle
(Democrat, South Dakota) has been lobbying hard for on behalf of Boeing. Oops!
You forgot to mention that part, I'm sure.

 


"Daniel J. Stern" wrote:
>
> ...except for childless couples, who are just an exception to the rule and
> therefore don't really change the principle UNLESS they happen to be
> childless GAY couples, in which case they're a dealbreaker.
>
> Here's a nice 1/2" wrench to throw into the works: Gay couples WITH
> children.

(With the exception of cloning which is not available to us yet - but
that's a whole other can of worms) A gay couple can't have children
(adoption excluded). If there is a gay "couple", for there to be a
biologically derived kid, there has to be direct or indirect biological
opposite-sex interaction. Two people of the same sex (a gay "couple")
cannot biologically have a child.

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! =-----
 


Lloyd Parker wrote:

> In article <[email protected]>,
> [email protected] (Matthew Russotto) wrote:
> >In article <[email protected]>,
> >Brandon Sommerville <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>On Fri, 05 Dec 2003 13:24:57 -0600, [email protected]
> >>(Matthew Russotto) wrote:
> >>
> >>>In article <[email protected]>,
> >>>Brandon Sommerville <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>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?
> >>>
> >>>Not exactly. In my case (hip rather than knee, but same idea), it was
> >>>same day (first MRI) and later in the week (second MRI) and it still
> >>>didn't cost me anything extra. There was no urgency in the medical
> >>>sense. The more complex MRA did take a month, because it had to be
> >>>scheduled with both the radiology department and the MRI center. No
> >>>rationing involved.
> >>
> >>And if there was no one who needed an MRI I'd get one right away as
> >>well.
> >
> >But in the US, we've got enough MRIs to service both the critical needs and
> >the less-critical needs in a timely manner.
>
> For those with insurance or plenty of money. Of course, that's one reason
> health care IS so expensive -- every hospital, every clinic, thinks they have
> to have every expensive machine, be capable of performing every expensive
> procedure. It's like Chrysler deciding they need to have the parts and
> engineers on hand to make every type of vehicle in the world, from sports car
> to military tank to NASA space shuttle. What would their overhead costs be?

Hospitals invest in the technology they need to meet the demand for services and
survive. But your claim is silly, hospitals often refer patients to other
hospitals with more specialized equipment and physicians, on emergency and
non-emergency basis all the time.


 
Bill Putney wrote:
>
> "C. E. White" wrote:
>
> > Lesbian couples can even have children.
>
> Technically, no. There has to be a real penis involved somewhere.

I don't dispute that, but even in marriages sometimes the children
aren't necessarily of the expected parentage.

Ed
 


"Daniel J. Stern" wrote:
>
> On Fri, 5 Dec 2003, David J. Allen wrote:

> > ...I don't suppose Clarence Thomas would qualify as a civil rights
> > authority. Would he?
>
> Well, let's see. What are Coretta Scott King's qualifications as an
> authority on the civil rights struggle for blacks? Her credentials, her
> track record and experience and that of her late husband.
>
> What are Clarence Thomas' qualifications? The color of his skin...?

No - a conservative black person is automatically disqualified and is to
be figuratively castrated or lynched whenever possible. They don't
refer to them as the NAA*L*CP for no reason.

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! =-----
 


Lloyd Parker wrote:

> 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.

Citation for your factoid? Article, Issue, Date, Page Number? I have access to
Fortune's archives so it will be no trouble to find your alleged source. (Perhaps
merely mentioning a Magazine name is good enough for your class, Professor, but it
certainly was not sufficient for any of mine.)

>
>
> >> 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.

Yes that explains why Wyeth has been downsizing to survive. Some companies make
consistent profits, some don't and die.

> And they spend more on advertising and
> lobbying than research.

Your point? What companies DON"T advertise?

>
>
> >
> >>
> >> 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?

You're suggesting that US citizens should subsidize ALL healthcare. Unless you
are suggested that "the government" just pay for everything without realizes who
pays "the government." But hey, we always hear how illegal aliens pay so many
taxes too right? That should makes us feel better.

But then again you said, HMO's are "all run by insurance companies, and they sure
are for profit" as if the sample of not for profit HMOs above don't exist, despite
being some of the largest.

 
Lloyd Parker wrote:

> 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.

Only in LloydLand. Medicare, Medicaid, and state medical assistance in the USA
pays for such services every day. Many hospitals and their doctors operate free
clinics for low income patients in addition to this.

 


Lloyd Parker wrote:

> 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.

But a combination of Medicaid, Medicare, and state medical assistance does.

 


Lloyd Parker wrote:

> 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.

Yeah, right. Next time try actually reading what you respond to.

 


Lloyd Parker wrote:

> 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.

Who would you have given the same contracts to instead?

> Do I get to decide which ones I don't pay taxes to
> support?

You get to vote for the representatives and Senators of your choice.

 


Lloyd Parker wrote:

> And heaven forbid you Taliban would have to accept everyone as being equal.

When even you are sure you don't have an argument, you resort to calling somebody
"Taliban." Cute.

 

"Greg" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> X-no-archive: yes
>
> Lloyd Parker wrote:
>
> > 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.
>
> Strawman.
>
> > Every good right-wing
> > fundamentalist knows that.
>
> I'm sure YOUR house isn't connected to the grid. The grid which is
powered by
> those awful fuel burning, atom splitting, and even those chamber of
horrors
> windmills! No, I'll bet your lights, precious air conditioner, and
computer are
> specially powered by an unlimited supply of hot air emitted from its
owner,
> right?

Aw, c'mon, Lloyd doesn't need any of that, he uses electricity, heat,
shelter, etc. all provided by Emory University!




 
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