In article <4tgpsv0qjj3fk9mq5t2goiuibmpnu8k64r@4ax.com>,
Bill Funk <bfunk33@pipping.com> wrote:
>On Tue, 02 Dec 2003 05:17:32 GMT, "David J. Allen"
><dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote:
>
>>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.
>
>Well, Hillary's solution would have fixed that; any doctor caught
>giving care outside the approved system would be liable to legal
>prosecution, with penalties including fines, jail time & loss of
>license.

That's a lie. That was never, ever part of any proposal. The plan was
similar to Canada's -- a single payer, with anyone being able to purchase
additional private insurance. What was banned was selling insurance that
covered the SAME thing the government plan would already cover.

>A true utopia.
>>
>>This is the template one could overlay anything. Energy, Healthcare, Food,
>>etc., etc. Those who support Kyoto are lefties and the farther left you go,
>>the more strident the support for Kyoto. The "rich" are the ones one need
>>to be reigned in so the "poor" will have a chance.
>

 

In article <4tgpsv0qjj3fk9mq5t2goiuibmpnu8k64r@4ax.com>,
Bill Funk <bfunk33@pipping.com> wrote:
>On Tue, 02 Dec 2003 05:17:32 GMT, "David J. Allen"
><dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote:
>
>>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.
>
>Well, Hillary's solution would have fixed that; any doctor caught
>giving care outside the approved system would be liable to legal
>prosecution, with penalties including fines, jail time & loss of
>license.

That's a lie. That was never, ever part of any proposal. The plan was
similar to Canada's -- a single payer, with anyone being able to purchase
additional private insurance. What was banned was selling insurance that
covered the SAME thing the government plan would already cover.

>A true utopia.
>>
>>This is the template one could overlay anything. Energy, Healthcare, Food,
>>etc., etc. Those who support Kyoto are lefties and the farther left you go,
>>the more strident the support for Kyoto. The "rich" are the ones one need
>>to be reigned in so the "poor" will have a chance.
>

 

In article <QA3zb.1107$Kf2.626@twister.socal.rr.com>,
"David J. Allen" <dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote:
>
>"C. E. White" <cewhite3@mindspring.com> wrote in message
>news:3FCCB2E7.B0E53E0D@mindspring.com...
>>
>>
>> "David J. Allen" wrote:
>>
>> >
>> > 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.
>>
>> So now you live in a country where health care is ridiculously expensive.
>Most
>> of the money goes to insurance companies. Nurses in the emergency room
>spend
>> more time filling out paperwork than looking after patients. Doctors live
>in
>> fear of making an honest mistake because the sharks are circulating just
>out of
>> sight ready to pounce. If you are poor the health care is still "free."
>If you
>> are rich or have really good insurance, then the system is great. However
>if you
>> are somewhere in between, chances are your insurance company will try to
>screw
>> you, while the hospital tries to bleed your dry (to pay for the
>administrators,
>> paper pushers, and to cover the cost of the "free" health care for the
>poor).
>> The fact is, we do have National Health Care in the US. The sad part is,
>we have
>> just about the worst possible system you can imagine. Personally I see
>only two
>> ways out - 1) A true National Health Care system with restrictions on
>"private"
>> practices, 2) Outlaw all health insurance and shoot anyone who even
>suggests
>> that companies provide health insurance. Everyone pays their own bills. If
>you
>> can't afford the treatment, you can apply for welfare (which would be
>generously
>> granted based on need).
>>
>
>There's no shortage of things to criticize about health care in the US.
>But, with the right perspective, it can be judged a very good system. I
>remember getting my first job and insurance was completely paid for by the
>company and there were no co-pays and only a small deductible. The problem
>with that is that it's so inflationary; patients didn't care what the cost
>was. Over the last 15 years the cost burden is being "shared" more and more
>with the patients. The cost of care is not distributed evenly. Those who
>pay, pay a lot. The cost of developing drugs and procedures is very
>expensive. You're right about the cost of providing free care to the poor
>and paying for malpractice litigation. Managed care puts the brakes on
>demand making it frustrating for patients whose health is at stake.
>
>With managed care, when you do your homework as a "consumer" of medical care
>and understand how the HMO system works, you CAN get what you need. As
>consumers, we have to do our part and understand what you're paying for and
>what the contract says. Then work with it. Unfortunately, it's complex and
>not real easy since there's three parties... you, the provider and the
>insurer. But it is possible.
>
>I think a National Health Care system sounds very scary. If we want an
>abundant supply of medical care in this country you can't take the supply
>and demand components out of the system. The minute you do, there won't be
>enough care and it will be substandard. There will be a constant struggle
>to keep the system from bankrupting the national treasury. I think it will
>just become a giant sized version of an HMO run by the government with no
>competitors.

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.

But why not a single-payer, like Canada then? You wouldn't have national
health care, just national health insurance.

>
>> > This is the template one could overlay anything. Energy, Healthcare,
>Food,
>> > etc., etc. Those who support Kyoto are lefties and the farther left you
>go,
>> > the more strident the support for Kyoto. The "rich" are the ones one
>need
>> > to be reigned in so the "poor" will have a chance.
>>
>> Ed
>>
>
>

 

In article <QA3zb.1107$Kf2.626@twister.socal.rr.com>,
"David J. Allen" <dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote:
>
>"C. E. White" <cewhite3@mindspring.com> wrote in message
>news:3FCCB2E7.B0E53E0D@mindspring.com...
>>
>>
>> "David J. Allen" wrote:
>>
>> >
>> > 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.
>>
>> So now you live in a country where health care is ridiculously expensive.
>Most
>> of the money goes to insurance companies. Nurses in the emergency room
>spend
>> more time filling out paperwork than looking after patients. Doctors live
>in
>> fear of making an honest mistake because the sharks are circulating just
>out of
>> sight ready to pounce. If you are poor the health care is still "free."
>If you
>> are rich or have really good insurance, then the system is great. However
>if you
>> are somewhere in between, chances are your insurance company will try to
>screw
>> you, while the hospital tries to bleed your dry (to pay for the
>administrators,
>> paper pushers, and to cover the cost of the "free" health care for the
>poor).
>> The fact is, we do have National Health Care in the US. The sad part is,
>we have
>> just about the worst possible system you can imagine. Personally I see
>only two
>> ways out - 1) A true National Health Care system with restrictions on
>"private"
>> practices, 2) Outlaw all health insurance and shoot anyone who even
>suggests
>> that companies provide health insurance. Everyone pays their own bills. If
>you
>> can't afford the treatment, you can apply for welfare (which would be
>generously
>> granted based on need).
>>
>
>There's no shortage of things to criticize about health care in the US.
>But, with the right perspective, it can be judged a very good system. I
>remember getting my first job and insurance was completely paid for by the
>company and there were no co-pays and only a small deductible. The problem
>with that is that it's so inflationary; patients didn't care what the cost
>was. Over the last 15 years the cost burden is being "shared" more and more
>with the patients. The cost of care is not distributed evenly. Those who
>pay, pay a lot. The cost of developing drugs and procedures is very
>expensive. You're right about the cost of providing free care to the poor
>and paying for malpractice litigation. Managed care puts the brakes on
>demand making it frustrating for patients whose health is at stake.
>
>With managed care, when you do your homework as a "consumer" of medical care
>and understand how the HMO system works, you CAN get what you need. As
>consumers, we have to do our part and understand what you're paying for and
>what the contract says. Then work with it. Unfortunately, it's complex and
>not real easy since there's three parties... you, the provider and the
>insurer. But it is possible.
>
>I think a National Health Care system sounds very scary. If we want an
>abundant supply of medical care in this country you can't take the supply
>and demand components out of the system. The minute you do, there won't be
>enough care and it will be substandard. There will be a constant struggle
>to keep the system from bankrupting the national treasury. I think it will
>just become a giant sized version of an HMO run by the government with no
>competitors.

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.

But why not a single-payer, like Canada then? You wouldn't have national
health care, just national health insurance.

>
>> > This is the template one could overlay anything. Energy, Healthcare,
>Food,
>> > etc., etc. Those who support Kyoto are lefties and the farther left you
>go,
>> > the more strident the support for Kyoto. The "rich" are the ones one
>need
>> > to be reigned in so the "poor" will have a chance.
>>
>> Ed
>>
>
>

 

In article <QA3zb.1107$Kf2.626@twister.socal.rr.com>,
"David J. Allen" <dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote:
>
>"C. E. White" <cewhite3@mindspring.com> wrote in message
>news:3FCCB2E7.B0E53E0D@mindspring.com...
>>
>>
>> "David J. Allen" wrote:
>>
>> >
>> > 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.
>>
>> So now you live in a country where health care is ridiculously expensive.
>Most
>> of the money goes to insurance companies. Nurses in the emergency room
>spend
>> more time filling out paperwork than looking after patients. Doctors live
>in
>> fear of making an honest mistake because the sharks are circulating just
>out of
>> sight ready to pounce. If you are poor the health care is still "free."
>If you
>> are rich or have really good insurance, then the system is great. However
>if you
>> are somewhere in between, chances are your insurance company will try to
>screw
>> you, while the hospital tries to bleed your dry (to pay for the
>administrators,
>> paper pushers, and to cover the cost of the "free" health care for the
>poor).
>> The fact is, we do have National Health Care in the US. The sad part is,
>we have
>> just about the worst possible system you can imagine. Personally I see
>only two
>> ways out - 1) A true National Health Care system with restrictions on
>"private"
>> practices, 2) Outlaw all health insurance and shoot anyone who even
>suggests
>> that companies provide health insurance. Everyone pays their own bills. If
>you
>> can't afford the treatment, you can apply for welfare (which would be
>generously
>> granted based on need).
>>
>
>There's no shortage of things to criticize about health care in the US.
>But, with the right perspective, it can be judged a very good system. I
>remember getting my first job and insurance was completely paid for by the
>company and there were no co-pays and only a small deductible. The problem
>with that is that it's so inflationary; patients didn't care what the cost
>was. Over the last 15 years the cost burden is being "shared" more and more
>with the patients. The cost of care is not distributed evenly. Those who
>pay, pay a lot. The cost of developing drugs and procedures is very
>expensive. You're right about the cost of providing free care to the poor
>and paying for malpractice litigation. Managed care puts the brakes on
>demand making it frustrating for patients whose health is at stake.
>
>With managed care, when you do your homework as a "consumer" of medical care
>and understand how the HMO system works, you CAN get what you need. As
>consumers, we have to do our part and understand what you're paying for and
>what the contract says. Then work with it. Unfortunately, it's complex and
>not real easy since there's three parties... you, the provider and the
>insurer. But it is possible.
>
>I think a National Health Care system sounds very scary. If we want an
>abundant supply of medical care in this country you can't take the supply
>and demand components out of the system. The minute you do, there won't be
>enough care and it will be substandard. There will be a constant struggle
>to keep the system from bankrupting the national treasury. I think it will
>just become a giant sized version of an HMO run by the government with no
>competitors.

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.

But why not a single-payer, like Canada then? You wouldn't have national
health care, just national health insurance.

>
>> > This is the template one could overlay anything. Energy, Healthcare,
>Food,
>> > etc., etc. Those who support Kyoto are lefties and the farther left you
>go,
>> > the more strident the support for Kyoto. The "rich" are the ones one
>need
>> > to be reigned in so the "poor" will have a chance.
>>
>> Ed
>>
>
>

 

In article <3FCCD887.D942F3A9@greg.greg>, John S <john_s@no.spam> wrote:
>
>
>z wrote:
>
>> tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote in message
news:<O0Lyb.274685$ao4.944751@attbi_s51>...
>> > In article <b5b4685f.0312010918.6e702dc5@posting.google.com >, z wrote:
>> >
>> > > They are going to move production of CO2 to China? All those
>> > > inefficient old coal-fired power plants are going to China?
>> >
>> > What is better? An old inefficient regulated to be as clean as feasiable
>> > coal power plant in the USA feeding a factory with electricity or a
>> > quick-and-dirty-old-tech-soviet-style coal plant in china feeding a
>> > factory? Which is better for the environment?
>> >
>> > And why do we have old coal plants in the USA? Because any new plants
>> > are opposed on environmental grounds. And new and better means of
>> > generation are opposed on environmental grounds. So what we get
>> > is the status quo. The status quo remains because change is not
>> > possible.
>>
>> Yeah, the old rightwing fantasy factory rides again. Do you recall the
>> Clean Air Act? Do you recall that the power companies piteously pled
>> for and were granted an exemption for their old coal and oil fuelled
>> plants, since the power companies promised that they were going to be
>> all mothballed soon anyway and it would be purely wasteful to upgrade
>> them for the short time they will be in operation? Well, it's thirty
>> years later now, and here in CT, half the electricity is still being
>> produced by those old 'soon to be mothballed' plants, known locally as
>> the Filthy Five. This is not because the utility companies are just
>> dying to build some expensive clean new plants and the
>> environmentalists just won't let them. It's purely because it's much
>> cheaper to run these monstrosities unmodified than it is to build new
>> plants, despite the environmentalists screaming to trade them for
>> clean new plants or else update them. The Reagan and Bush I
>> administrations refused to enforce the part of the Clean Air Act that
>> requires the companies to install upgraded pollution controls if they
>> were doing significant expansions to the plants, in contrast to
>> routine maintenance, allowing the Filthy Five to actually expand their
>> filthy emissions. The Clinton administration finally starts to enforce
>> this provision, and what happens? The Bush junta reverses the
>> enforcement decision. And in response to this boondoggle, the
>> utilities raise their rates 10%.
>
>That's not true at all. First of all, the Bush I administration SIGNED the
Clean Air Act
>amendments in 1990 into law, which strenghthened, not weakened the Clean Air
Act. Secondly, the
>act was and is being enforced. The act was designed to require NEW PLANTS
(new sources) to have
>much more stringent controls with updated technology. Older plants would be
initially exempted
>because of common sense economics. However pollution from these older palnts
would then be capped
>and traded, so plants pay for their negative externalities (pollution) and
production is shifted to
>the most efficient (by this I mean less polluting) plants because they are
cheaper to operate due
>to the cost of pollution credits. In this way all plants use the most
advanced pollution controls
>available to them. Eventually the older plants are shut down or upgraded
(when they WOULD be
>subject to New Source controls) because they are too expensive to operate or
they get too old to
>operate anyway.
>
>The problem is that the Clinton administration started treating routine
maintenance on plants as
>"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). If during 10 years of routine
maintenance you replace each part, you've got a new source, yet under your and
Bush's plan, it'd never trigger the latest pollution controls because you
replaced it one piece at a time, as part of each year's maintenance.

Treating it this way
>subjected the plants specifically exempted from the statue to the
requirements of new plants.

But if the plants get modified instead of just "serviced and cleaned", that's
precisely what the law intended. That's why the EPA sued a number of utility
companies, why a number of them settled, and why the suits continued until
Bush decided to "reinterpet" the law just this year.


?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.

>specifically about how the Clinton EPA chief was upset that plants were TOO
CLEAN because they
>needed something to rail against to publicity. This was all recorded in
memos.

It was not.

>
>The Bush plan restores the EPA's mandated New Source Review. But it's easier
for people to make
>silly attacks on Bush, because they cannot comprehend the actual laws, the
reason why they were
>written, the actual effects that they have, the effect of enforcing non-laws,
or what is going on
>in general.


Next you'll be telling us how good Bush is for the environment! LOL!

>
>------
>"In one famous case, DTE Energy Corp., parent of Detroit Edison Co., tried to
replace older, less
>efficient propeller blades in several steam turbines at its biggest
coal-fired plant. The new
>blades were 15% more efficient than the old, meaning they could generate 15%
more power using the
>same amount of energy--more power, less pollution. But the Clinton EPA
threatened to invoke New
>Source Review anyway, so the plan was scrapped.
>
>Not that Detroit Edison and others are avoiding heavy pollution-fighting
expenses. At the very same
>plant, Detroit Edison is spending $650 million to meet new nitrogen oxide
standards--an expense
>that won't generate a single new kilowatt of electricity.
>
>Bureaucrats, of course, interpret such a rational response to perverse rules
as a sign of corporate
>greed. So when the Clinton administration found that at least 80% of the
nation's utilities were
>violating its New Source Review guidelines, it didn't bother to ask whether
something might be
>wrong with its policies. It simply filed an avalanche of lawsuits demanding
huge fines.
>
>Yet EPA data clearly show that emissions of nitrogen oxide and sulfur
dioxide, the two main
>industrial pollutants, have declined substantially despite a tripling of coal
usage. Future Clean
>Air targets will reduce emissions a further 50%." -WSJ 11/26/02
>

 

In article <3FCCD887.D942F3A9@greg.greg>, John S <john_s@no.spam> wrote:
>
>
>z wrote:
>
>> tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote in message
news:<O0Lyb.274685$ao4.944751@attbi_s51>...
>> > In article <b5b4685f.0312010918.6e702dc5@posting.google.com >, z wrote:
>> >
>> > > They are going to move production of CO2 to China? All those
>> > > inefficient old coal-fired power plants are going to China?
>> >
>> > What is better? An old inefficient regulated to be as clean as feasiable
>> > coal power plant in the USA feeding a factory with electricity or a
>> > quick-and-dirty-old-tech-soviet-style coal plant in china feeding a
>> > factory? Which is better for the environment?
>> >
>> > And why do we have old coal plants in the USA? Because any new plants
>> > are opposed on environmental grounds. And new and better means of
>> > generation are opposed on environmental grounds. So what we get
>> > is the status quo. The status quo remains because change is not
>> > possible.
>>
>> Yeah, the old rightwing fantasy factory rides again. Do you recall the
>> Clean Air Act? Do you recall that the power companies piteously pled
>> for and were granted an exemption for their old coal and oil fuelled
>> plants, since the power companies promised that they were going to be
>> all mothballed soon anyway and it would be purely wasteful to upgrade
>> them for the short time they will be in operation? Well, it's thirty
>> years later now, and here in CT, half the electricity is still being
>> produced by those old 'soon to be mothballed' plants, known locally as
>> the Filthy Five. This is not because the utility companies are just
>> dying to build some expensive clean new plants and the
>> environmentalists just won't let them. It's purely because it's much
>> cheaper to run these monstrosities unmodified than it is to build new
>> plants, despite the environmentalists screaming to trade them for
>> clean new plants or else update them. The Reagan and Bush I
>> administrations refused to enforce the part of the Clean Air Act that
>> requires the companies to install upgraded pollution controls if they
>> were doing significant expansions to the plants, in contrast to
>> routine maintenance, allowing the Filthy Five to actually expand their
>> filthy emissions. The Clinton administration finally starts to enforce
>> this provision, and what happens? The Bush junta reverses the
>> enforcement decision. And in response to this boondoggle, the
>> utilities raise their rates 10%.
>
>That's not true at all. First of all, the Bush I administration SIGNED the
Clean Air Act
>amendments in 1990 into law, which strenghthened, not weakened the Clean Air
Act. Secondly, the
>act was and is being enforced. The act was designed to require NEW PLANTS
(new sources) to have
>much more stringent controls with updated technology. Older plants would be
initially exempted
>because of common sense economics. However pollution from these older palnts
would then be capped
>and traded, so plants pay for their negative externalities (pollution) and
production is shifted to
>the most efficient (by this I mean less polluting) plants because they are
cheaper to operate due
>to the cost of pollution credits. In this way all plants use the most
advanced pollution controls
>available to them. Eventually the older plants are shut down or upgraded
(when they WOULD be
>subject to New Source controls) because they are too expensive to operate or
they get too old to
>operate anyway.
>
>The problem is that the Clinton administration started treating routine
maintenance on plants as
>"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). If during 10 years of routine
maintenance you replace each part, you've got a new source, yet under your and
Bush's plan, it'd never trigger the latest pollution controls because you
replaced it one piece at a time, as part of each year's maintenance.

Treating it this way
>subjected the plants specifically exempted from the statue to the
requirements of new plants.

But if the plants get modified instead of just "serviced and cleaned", that's
precisely what the law intended. That's why the EPA sued a number of utility
companies, why a number of them settled, and why the suits continued until
Bush decided to "reinterpet" the law just this year.


?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.

>specifically about how the Clinton EPA chief was upset that plants were TOO
CLEAN because they
>needed something to rail against to publicity. This was all recorded in
memos.

It was not.

>
>The Bush plan restores the EPA's mandated New Source Review. But it's easier
for people to make
>silly attacks on Bush, because they cannot comprehend the actual laws, the
reason why they were
>written, the actual effects that they have, the effect of enforcing non-laws,
or what is going on
>in general.


Next you'll be telling us how good Bush is for the environment! LOL!

>
>------
>"In one famous case, DTE Energy Corp., parent of Detroit Edison Co., tried to
replace older, less
>efficient propeller blades in several steam turbines at its biggest
coal-fired plant. The new
>blades were 15% more efficient than the old, meaning they could generate 15%
more power using the
>same amount of energy--more power, less pollution. But the Clinton EPA
threatened to invoke New
>Source Review anyway, so the plan was scrapped.
>
>Not that Detroit Edison and others are avoiding heavy pollution-fighting
expenses. At the very same
>plant, Detroit Edison is spending $650 million to meet new nitrogen oxide
standards--an expense
>that won't generate a single new kilowatt of electricity.
>
>Bureaucrats, of course, interpret such a rational response to perverse rules
as a sign of corporate
>greed. So when the Clinton administration found that at least 80% of the
nation's utilities were
>violating its New Source Review guidelines, it didn't bother to ask whether
something might be
>wrong with its policies. It simply filed an avalanche of lawsuits demanding
huge fines.
>
>Yet EPA data clearly show that emissions of nitrogen oxide and sulfur
dioxide, the two main
>industrial pollutants, have declined substantially despite a tripling of coal
usage. Future Clean
>Air targets will reduce emissions a further 50%." -WSJ 11/26/02
>

 

In article <3FCCD887.D942F3A9@greg.greg>, John S <john_s@no.spam> wrote:
>
>
>z wrote:
>
>> tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote in message
news:<O0Lyb.274685$ao4.944751@attbi_s51>...
>> > In article <b5b4685f.0312010918.6e702dc5@posting.google.com >, z wrote:
>> >
>> > > They are going to move production of CO2 to China? All those
>> > > inefficient old coal-fired power plants are going to China?
>> >
>> > What is better? An old inefficient regulated to be as clean as feasiable
>> > coal power plant in the USA feeding a factory with electricity or a
>> > quick-and-dirty-old-tech-soviet-style coal plant in china feeding a
>> > factory? Which is better for the environment?
>> >
>> > And why do we have old coal plants in the USA? Because any new plants
>> > are opposed on environmental grounds. And new and better means of
>> > generation are opposed on environmental grounds. So what we get
>> > is the status quo. The status quo remains because change is not
>> > possible.
>>
>> Yeah, the old rightwing fantasy factory rides again. Do you recall the
>> Clean Air Act? Do you recall that the power companies piteously pled
>> for and were granted an exemption for their old coal and oil fuelled
>> plants, since the power companies promised that they were going to be
>> all mothballed soon anyway and it would be purely wasteful to upgrade
>> them for the short time they will be in operation? Well, it's thirty
>> years later now, and here in CT, half the electricity is still being
>> produced by those old 'soon to be mothballed' plants, known locally as
>> the Filthy Five. This is not because the utility companies are just
>> dying to build some expensive clean new plants and the
>> environmentalists just won't let them. It's purely because it's much
>> cheaper to run these monstrosities unmodified than it is to build new
>> plants, despite the environmentalists screaming to trade them for
>> clean new plants or else update them. The Reagan and Bush I
>> administrations refused to enforce the part of the Clean Air Act that
>> requires the companies to install upgraded pollution controls if they
>> were doing significant expansions to the plants, in contrast to
>> routine maintenance, allowing the Filthy Five to actually expand their
>> filthy emissions. The Clinton administration finally starts to enforce
>> this provision, and what happens? The Bush junta reverses the
>> enforcement decision. And in response to this boondoggle, the
>> utilities raise their rates 10%.
>
>That's not true at all. First of all, the Bush I administration SIGNED the
Clean Air Act
>amendments in 1990 into law, which strenghthened, not weakened the Clean Air
Act. Secondly, the
>act was and is being enforced. The act was designed to require NEW PLANTS
(new sources) to have
>much more stringent controls with updated technology. Older plants would be
initially exempted
>because of common sense economics. However pollution from these older palnts
would then be capped
>and traded, so plants pay for their negative externalities (pollution) and
production is shifted to
>the most efficient (by this I mean less polluting) plants because they are
cheaper to operate due
>to the cost of pollution credits. In this way all plants use the most
advanced pollution controls
>available to them. Eventually the older plants are shut down or upgraded
(when they WOULD be
>subject to New Source controls) because they are too expensive to operate or
they get too old to
>operate anyway.
>
>The problem is that the Clinton administration started treating routine
maintenance on plants as
>"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). If during 10 years of routine
maintenance you replace each part, you've got a new source, yet under your and
Bush's plan, it'd never trigger the latest pollution controls because you
replaced it one piece at a time, as part of each year's maintenance.

Treating it this way
>subjected the plants specifically exempted from the statue to the
requirements of new plants.

But if the plants get modified instead of just "serviced and cleaned", that's
precisely what the law intended. That's why the EPA sued a number of utility
companies, why a number of them settled, and why the suits continued until
Bush decided to "reinterpet" the law just this year.


?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.

>specifically about how the Clinton EPA chief was upset that plants were TOO
CLEAN because they
>needed something to rail against to publicity. This was all recorded in
memos.

It was not.

>
>The Bush plan restores the EPA's mandated New Source Review. But it's easier
for people to make
>silly attacks on Bush, because they cannot comprehend the actual laws, the
reason why they were
>written, the actual effects that they have, the effect of enforcing non-laws,
or what is going on
>in general.


Next you'll be telling us how good Bush is for the environment! LOL!

>
>------
>"In one famous case, DTE Energy Corp., parent of Detroit Edison Co., tried to
replace older, less
>efficient propeller blades in several steam turbines at its biggest
coal-fired plant. The new
>blades were 15% more efficient than the old, meaning they could generate 15%
more power using the
>same amount of energy--more power, less pollution. But the Clinton EPA
threatened to invoke New
>Source Review anyway, so the plan was scrapped.
>
>Not that Detroit Edison and others are avoiding heavy pollution-fighting
expenses. At the very same
>plant, Detroit Edison is spending $650 million to meet new nitrogen oxide
standards--an expense
>that won't generate a single new kilowatt of electricity.
>
>Bureaucrats, of course, interpret such a rational response to perverse rules
as a sign of corporate
>greed. So when the Clinton administration found that at least 80% of the
nation's utilities were
>violating its New Source Review guidelines, it didn't bother to ask whether
something might be
>wrong with its policies. It simply filed an avalanche of lawsuits demanding
huge fines.
>
>Yet EPA data clearly show that emissions of nitrogen oxide and sulfur
dioxide, the two main
>industrial pollutants, have declined substantially despite a tripling of coal
usage. Future Clean
>Air targets will reduce emissions a further 50%." -WSJ 11/26/02
>

 

In article <20031201224506281-0900@news.newsguy.com>, Del Rawlins wrote:
> On 01 Dec 2003 07:49 PM, Brent P posted the following:
>> In article <20031201190834633-0900@news.newsguy.com>, Del Rawlins
>> wrote:
>>
>>> We're going to pay for that eventually, and that is the main reason
>>> why I try to avoid goods made in red China as much as possible.
>>> Since I am a tool addict, this gets expensive. I will buy Taiwanese
>>> tools if I just can't afford the US made equivalent (my JET drill
>>> press is a good example of this, I couldn't even find a new American
>>> made drill press) on the theory that at least Taiwan is an ally, and
>>> the fact that their continued success can only **** off the
>>> communists. The quality tends to be better than the stuff from the
>>> mainland as well.
>>
>> Taiwan made stuff isn't the greatest generally but better than
>> mainland china. Hong Kong is about the same as Taiwan.
>>
>> One common practice is to make the production tolling in taiwan
>> or Hong Kong and then once there won't be any more tooling changes,
>> ship the tool to mainland china for production.
>
> So either way I am still subsidizing Red China's machine tool industry?
> Krap.

No, if it's made in taiwan, it's made in taiwan. Just agreeing that
the quality of the work is better in taiwan so usually the tooling is
done there rather in mainland china.

 

In article <20031201224506281-0900@news.newsguy.com>, Del Rawlins wrote:
> On 01 Dec 2003 07:49 PM, Brent P posted the following:
>> In article <20031201190834633-0900@news.newsguy.com>, Del Rawlins
>> wrote:
>>
>>> We're going to pay for that eventually, and that is the main reason
>>> why I try to avoid goods made in red China as much as possible.
>>> Since I am a tool addict, this gets expensive. I will buy Taiwanese
>>> tools if I just can't afford the US made equivalent (my JET drill
>>> press is a good example of this, I couldn't even find a new American
>>> made drill press) on the theory that at least Taiwan is an ally, and
>>> the fact that their continued success can only **** off the
>>> communists. The quality tends to be better than the stuff from the
>>> mainland as well.
>>
>> Taiwan made stuff isn't the greatest generally but better than
>> mainland china. Hong Kong is about the same as Taiwan.
>>
>> One common practice is to make the production tolling in taiwan
>> or Hong Kong and then once there won't be any more tooling changes,
>> ship the tool to mainland china for production.
>
> So either way I am still subsidizing Red China's machine tool industry?
> Krap.

No, if it's made in taiwan, it's made in taiwan. Just agreeing that
the quality of the work is better in taiwan so usually the tooling is
done there rather in mainland china.