"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
news:bqitii$of5$5@puck.cc.emory.edu...
> In article <JX5zb.48$rE3.36@twister.socal.rr.com>,
> "David J. Allen" <dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote:
> >
> >> >
> >> >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.
> >>
> >
> >That's the point. A national HMO.
>
> No, a national insurance. Like Medicare, which runs with less overhead
than
> any private insurance company, and which seniors love.
>

Doctors who accept Medicare patients lose money. Many doctors won't accept
Medicare patients for that reason. Those that do accept them do it because
they feel an obligation. Medicare is also headed for bankruptcy unless
drastic action is taken. Reduced coverage, reduced reimbursement to
doctors, increased Medicare tax withholding.

 

"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
news:bqitii$of5$5@puck.cc.emory.edu...
> In article <JX5zb.48$rE3.36@twister.socal.rr.com>,
> "David J. Allen" <dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote:
> >
> >> >
> >> >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.
> >>
> >
> >That's the point. A national HMO.
>
> No, a national insurance. Like Medicare, which runs with less overhead
than
> any private insurance company, and which seniors love.
>

Doctors who accept Medicare patients lose money. Many doctors won't accept
Medicare patients for that reason. Those that do accept them do it because
they feel an obligation. Medicare is also headed for bankruptcy unless
drastic action is taken. Reduced coverage, reduced reimbursement to
doctors, increased Medicare tax withholding.

 

"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
news:bqitii$of5$5@puck.cc.emory.edu...
> In article <JX5zb.48$rE3.36@twister.socal.rr.com>,
> "David J. Allen" <dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote:
> >
> >> >
> >> >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.
> >>
> >
> >That's the point. A national HMO.
>
> No, a national insurance. Like Medicare, which runs with less overhead
than
> any private insurance company, and which seniors love.
>

Doctors who accept Medicare patients lose money. Many doctors won't accept
Medicare patients for that reason. Those that do accept them do it because
they feel an obligation. Medicare is also headed for bankruptcy unless
drastic action is taken. Reduced coverage, reduced reimbursement to
doctors, increased Medicare tax withholding.

 

"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
news:bqit92$of5$2@puck.cc.emory.edu...
> In article <MK5zb.46$rE3.8@twister.socal.rr.com>,
> "David J. Allen" <dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote:
> >> >> Yeah, that's a requirement for a grant, like your predecessors here
> >> >> say. You have to say 'and if funded, this project will destroy
> >> >> capitalism and further the crypto-communist agenda, destroying the
> >> >> middle class life style of myself and others like me and my family'.
> >> >> Bravo, you've figured it out. Down with science!!!
> >> >
> >> >This is the strategy of the left. When they find them on the wrong
side
> >of
> >> >morality, they redefine morality. Now it's science. If you disagree
> >with
> >> >the "science" of global warming (and the global disaster it leads to)
> >then
> >> >you reject science. Likewise, morality is no longer fidelity,
honesty,
> >> >personal responsibility. It's now support for the policies of the
left,
> >> >like gay marriage and adopting the Kyoto protocol.
> >>
> >> Spoken like a good little creationist.
> >>
> >
> >Who? Me? I don't buy into "Creation Science". But the lefts
redefinition
> >of "morality" and "science" is no different than what Creationists do to
> >force fit science into Genesis. Only it's force fit of science (and
> >religion) into anti-capitalism.
>
> No, you reject facts that don't fit your dogma. That's creationism.
>
> >
> >> >
> >> >The groups standing behind extreme environmentalists are Socialists
and
> >> >Communists. They are idealogical siblings to protect people from
"evil
> >> >corporations".
> >> >
> >> >
> >> And the folks standing behind you and your ilk are Fascists and *****.
> >Want
> >> to call names? OK.
> >
> >Not at all. When you see who shows up to those anti-globalist
> >(anti-corporate) demonstrations you see Socialist signs and booths all
over
> >the place. No "name" calling was intended. And if you're looking for
nasty
> >names to fit conservatives, you're really missing the mark with Fascist
and
> >****. Those are on the opposite side of the political spectrum, away
from
> >limited government.
>
> So are conservatives -- telling people what kind of --- to have, what
genders
> can marry, what a woman can do with her body, etc.
>

This one again? Ok, I'll repeat myself. Conservatives believe some rights
are reserved to states and individuals to decide how they want to govern
themselves. That includes the rights of states and communities, through
their legislatures, to rule on sexual behaviors, abortion, and marriage.
It's the Dems who want to nationalize these things and force all communities
nationwide to accept their new age definitions of morality and religion.

The conservative position has never been to nationalize any of these issues,
but to allow local jurisdictions to choose for themselves. The only time
conservatives do want to nationalize such issues is when the Libs find a
liberal federal judge to overturn local law based and make it a national
issue, i.e., unlimited federal government.

Why can't you see the conservative vs. liberal debate as one based on role
of federal government instead of merely accusing conservatives of being
"rascist", "homophobe", "sexist", "bigoted". All those labels are debate
enders. The issue of the role of government is a legitimate thing to debate
with honorable arguments on both sides. Yet people like you never engage in
it. You resort to this name calling instead.

> >
> >

 

"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
news:bqit92$of5$2@puck.cc.emory.edu...
> In article <MK5zb.46$rE3.8@twister.socal.rr.com>,
> "David J. Allen" <dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote:
> >> >> Yeah, that's a requirement for a grant, like your predecessors here
> >> >> say. You have to say 'and if funded, this project will destroy
> >> >> capitalism and further the crypto-communist agenda, destroying the
> >> >> middle class life style of myself and others like me and my family'.
> >> >> Bravo, you've figured it out. Down with science!!!
> >> >
> >> >This is the strategy of the left. When they find them on the wrong
side
> >of
> >> >morality, they redefine morality. Now it's science. If you disagree
> >with
> >> >the "science" of global warming (and the global disaster it leads to)
> >then
> >> >you reject science. Likewise, morality is no longer fidelity,
honesty,
> >> >personal responsibility. It's now support for the policies of the
left,
> >> >like gay marriage and adopting the Kyoto protocol.
> >>
> >> Spoken like a good little creationist.
> >>
> >
> >Who? Me? I don't buy into "Creation Science". But the lefts
redefinition
> >of "morality" and "science" is no different than what Creationists do to
> >force fit science into Genesis. Only it's force fit of science (and
> >religion) into anti-capitalism.
>
> No, you reject facts that don't fit your dogma. That's creationism.
>
> >
> >> >
> >> >The groups standing behind extreme environmentalists are Socialists
and
> >> >Communists. They are idealogical siblings to protect people from
"evil
> >> >corporations".
> >> >
> >> >
> >> And the folks standing behind you and your ilk are Fascists and *****.
> >Want
> >> to call names? OK.
> >
> >Not at all. When you see who shows up to those anti-globalist
> >(anti-corporate) demonstrations you see Socialist signs and booths all
over
> >the place. No "name" calling was intended. And if you're looking for
nasty
> >names to fit conservatives, you're really missing the mark with Fascist
and
> >****. Those are on the opposite side of the political spectrum, away
from
> >limited government.
>
> So are conservatives -- telling people what kind of --- to have, what
genders
> can marry, what a woman can do with her body, etc.
>

This one again? Ok, I'll repeat myself. Conservatives believe some rights
are reserved to states and individuals to decide how they want to govern
themselves. That includes the rights of states and communities, through
their legislatures, to rule on sexual behaviors, abortion, and marriage.
It's the Dems who want to nationalize these things and force all communities
nationwide to accept their new age definitions of morality and religion.

The conservative position has never been to nationalize any of these issues,
but to allow local jurisdictions to choose for themselves. The only time
conservatives do want to nationalize such issues is when the Libs find a
liberal federal judge to overturn local law based and make it a national
issue, i.e., unlimited federal government.

Why can't you see the conservative vs. liberal debate as one based on role
of federal government instead of merely accusing conservatives of being
"rascist", "homophobe", "sexist", "bigoted". All those labels are debate
enders. The issue of the role of government is a legitimate thing to debate
with honorable arguments on both sides. Yet people like you never engage in
it. You resort to this name calling instead.

> >
> >

 

"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
news:bqit92$of5$2@puck.cc.emory.edu...
> In article <MK5zb.46$rE3.8@twister.socal.rr.com>,
> "David J. Allen" <dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote:
> >> >> Yeah, that's a requirement for a grant, like your predecessors here
> >> >> say. You have to say 'and if funded, this project will destroy
> >> >> capitalism and further the crypto-communist agenda, destroying the
> >> >> middle class life style of myself and others like me and my family'.
> >> >> Bravo, you've figured it out. Down with science!!!
> >> >
> >> >This is the strategy of the left. When they find them on the wrong
side
> >of
> >> >morality, they redefine morality. Now it's science. If you disagree
> >with
> >> >the "science" of global warming (and the global disaster it leads to)
> >then
> >> >you reject science. Likewise, morality is no longer fidelity,
honesty,
> >> >personal responsibility. It's now support for the policies of the
left,
> >> >like gay marriage and adopting the Kyoto protocol.
> >>
> >> Spoken like a good little creationist.
> >>
> >
> >Who? Me? I don't buy into "Creation Science". But the lefts
redefinition
> >of "morality" and "science" is no different than what Creationists do to
> >force fit science into Genesis. Only it's force fit of science (and
> >religion) into anti-capitalism.
>
> No, you reject facts that don't fit your dogma. That's creationism.
>
> >
> >> >
> >> >The groups standing behind extreme environmentalists are Socialists
and
> >> >Communists. They are idealogical siblings to protect people from
"evil
> >> >corporations".
> >> >
> >> >
> >> And the folks standing behind you and your ilk are Fascists and *****.
> >Want
> >> to call names? OK.
> >
> >Not at all. When you see who shows up to those anti-globalist
> >(anti-corporate) demonstrations you see Socialist signs and booths all
over
> >the place. No "name" calling was intended. And if you're looking for
nasty
> >names to fit conservatives, you're really missing the mark with Fascist
and
> >****. Those are on the opposite side of the political spectrum, away
from
> >limited government.
>
> So are conservatives -- telling people what kind of --- to have, what
genders
> can marry, what a woman can do with her body, etc.
>

This one again? Ok, I'll repeat myself. Conservatives believe some rights
are reserved to states and individuals to decide how they want to govern
themselves. That includes the rights of states and communities, through
their legislatures, to rule on sexual behaviors, abortion, and marriage.
It's the Dems who want to nationalize these things and force all communities
nationwide to accept their new age definitions of morality and religion.

The conservative position has never been to nationalize any of these issues,
but to allow local jurisdictions to choose for themselves. The only time
conservatives do want to nationalize such issues is when the Libs find a
liberal federal judge to overturn local law based and make it a national
issue, i.e., unlimited federal government.

Why can't you see the conservative vs. liberal debate as one based on role
of federal government instead of merely accusing conservatives of being
"rascist", "homophobe", "sexist", "bigoted". All those labels are debate
enders. The issue of the role of government is a legitimate thing to debate
with honorable arguments on both sides. Yet people like you never engage in
it. You resort to this name calling instead.

> >
> >

 

In article <goudnWexTPwLYFGiRTvUqA@texas.net>, Steve <no@spam.thanks> wrote:
>Lloyd Parker wrote:
>
>
>>>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.
>>
>
>Thats an incorrect interpretation. If I have a 1973 Plymouth (which I
>do) and I replace many components in the course of its 450,000 mile
>lifespan (which I have) it is STILL a 1973 Plymouth. It may have some
>improvements (modern tires, high-tech brake pads, modern shocks,
>aftermarket fuel injection) but it still costs me more to operate daily
>than a 2003 Intrepid would, and is still subject to 1973 emissions
>standards not 2003 standards. But my maintenance and improvements mean
>that it is cleaner and costs less to run than if I had a time machine
>and brought an UN-improved 1973 Plymouth to 2003 instead.

But if you replace the carb, then the pistons, then the exhaust, you've got
enough of a new engine that you ought to not still have the exemption that old
engines get from emissions standards.

>
>By treating routine maintenance as a "new source", the plant owner faces
>a double-whammy of 1) the higher cost of operating what is STILL
>actually an old-design plant and 2) gummint penalties. And on top of
>that, the Sierra Club and other luddite cronies are standing there just
>WAITING to protest and shut the whole operation down completely if the
>owner were to apply for a brand new plant to replace the old one. That
>does NOTHING to encourage building of new plants, but instead
>DIScourages routine maintenance that would keep the old plant running as
>cleanly as possible.
>
>

 

In article <goudnWexTPwLYFGiRTvUqA@texas.net>, Steve <no@spam.thanks> wrote:
>Lloyd Parker wrote:
>
>
>>>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.
>>
>
>Thats an incorrect interpretation. If I have a 1973 Plymouth (which I
>do) and I replace many components in the course of its 450,000 mile
>lifespan (which I have) it is STILL a 1973 Plymouth. It may have some
>improvements (modern tires, high-tech brake pads, modern shocks,
>aftermarket fuel injection) but it still costs me more to operate daily
>than a 2003 Intrepid would, and is still subject to 1973 emissions
>standards not 2003 standards. But my maintenance and improvements mean
>that it is cleaner and costs less to run than if I had a time machine
>and brought an UN-improved 1973 Plymouth to 2003 instead.

But if you replace the carb, then the pistons, then the exhaust, you've got
enough of a new engine that you ought to not still have the exemption that old
engines get from emissions standards.

>
>By treating routine maintenance as a "new source", the plant owner faces
>a double-whammy of 1) the higher cost of operating what is STILL
>actually an old-design plant and 2) gummint penalties. And on top of
>that, the Sierra Club and other luddite cronies are standing there just
>WAITING to protest and shut the whole operation down completely if the
>owner were to apply for a brand new plant to replace the old one. That
>does NOTHING to encourage building of new plants, but instead
>DIScourages routine maintenance that would keep the old plant running as
>cleanly as possible.
>
>

 

In article <goudnWexTPwLYFGiRTvUqA@texas.net>, Steve <no@spam.thanks> wrote:
>Lloyd Parker wrote:
>
>
>>>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.
>>
>
>Thats an incorrect interpretation. If I have a 1973 Plymouth (which I
>do) and I replace many components in the course of its 450,000 mile
>lifespan (which I have) it is STILL a 1973 Plymouth. It may have some
>improvements (modern tires, high-tech brake pads, modern shocks,
>aftermarket fuel injection) but it still costs me more to operate daily
>than a 2003 Intrepid would, and is still subject to 1973 emissions
>standards not 2003 standards. But my maintenance and improvements mean
>that it is cleaner and costs less to run than if I had a time machine
>and brought an UN-improved 1973 Plymouth to 2003 instead.

But if you replace the carb, then the pistons, then the exhaust, you've got
enough of a new engine that you ought to not still have the exemption that old
engines get from emissions standards.

>
>By treating routine maintenance as a "new source", the plant owner faces
>a double-whammy of 1) the higher cost of operating what is STILL
>actually an old-design plant and 2) gummint penalties. And on top of
>that, the Sierra Club and other luddite cronies are standing there just
>WAITING to protest and shut the whole operation down completely if the
>owner were to apply for a brand new plant to replace the old one. That
>does NOTHING to encourage building of new plants, but instead
>DIScourages routine maintenance that would keep the old plant running as
>cleanly as possible.
>
>

 

In article <rdqdncPcUbqAYlGiRTvUqQ@texas.net>, Steve <no@spam.thanks> 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_.

>
>Some companies *did* go to far and try to slip an entirely new plant in
>an old shell and call it "maintenance" to avoid installing emissions
>gear (Alcoa Sandow plant, for example) and they got caught and called on
>the carpet for it... Oh but wait, that happened during the Bush
>administration, interestingly enough. Sorta like Enron's crimes all took
>place during the Clinton years, but Lloyd keeps telling us that they
>were Bush cronies because they were *caught* during the Bush years. :-p
>
>
>
>