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
>
>
>
>

 

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
>
>
>
>

 

In article <cD8zb.400914$Tr4.1152927@attbi_s03>,
tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
>In article <bqit3e$of5$1@puck.cc.emory.edu>, Lloyd Parker wrote:
>> In article <Us5zb.282500$275.1000782@attbi_s53>,
>> tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
>>>In article <bqinb6$him$8@puck.cc.emory.edu>, Lloyd Parker wrote:
>>>
>>>> Yeah, it'd be terrible if everybody were covered and we spent less on
>> health
>>>> care, as Europe, Canada, and Japan do, wouldn't it? Terrible for
insurance
>>>> companies, drug companies, HMOs, etc, that is.
>>>
>>>How would we spend "less on health care" ? Instead of paying for health
>>>insurance we would pay *AT LEAST* that much in additional taxes.
>>>
>>>
>> Why is it, then, that every western European nation, plus Canada and Japan,
>> spend less per capita on health care than the US yet still cover everybody?
>
>Answer a question with a question. How does your state run health care
>system cost less than the current private one?
>
>
Because all the examples we have of state-run health care say it would.
Economy of scale, negotiation for lower prices, preventative care instead of
waiting until the person becomes sick -- all these and other factors.

 

In article <cD8zb.400914$Tr4.1152927@attbi_s03>,
tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
>In article <bqit3e$of5$1@puck.cc.emory.edu>, Lloyd Parker wrote:
>> In article <Us5zb.282500$275.1000782@attbi_s53>,
>> tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
>>>In article <bqinb6$him$8@puck.cc.emory.edu>, Lloyd Parker wrote:
>>>
>>>> Yeah, it'd be terrible if everybody were covered and we spent less on
>> health
>>>> care, as Europe, Canada, and Japan do, wouldn't it? Terrible for
insurance
>>>> companies, drug companies, HMOs, etc, that is.
>>>
>>>How would we spend "less on health care" ? Instead of paying for health
>>>insurance we would pay *AT LEAST* that much in additional taxes.
>>>
>>>
>> Why is it, then, that every western European nation, plus Canada and Japan,
>> spend less per capita on health care than the US yet still cover everybody?
>
>Answer a question with a question. How does your state run health care
>system cost less than the current private one?
>
>
Because all the examples we have of state-run health care say it would.
Economy of scale, negotiation for lower prices, preventative care instead of
waiting until the person becomes sick -- all these and other factors.

 

In article <cD8zb.400914$Tr4.1152927@attbi_s03>,
tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
>In article <bqit3e$of5$1@puck.cc.emory.edu>, Lloyd Parker wrote:
>> In article <Us5zb.282500$275.1000782@attbi_s53>,
>> tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
>>>In article <bqinb6$him$8@puck.cc.emory.edu>, Lloyd Parker wrote:
>>>
>>>> Yeah, it'd be terrible if everybody were covered and we spent less on
>> health
>>>> care, as Europe, Canada, and Japan do, wouldn't it? Terrible for
insurance
>>>> companies, drug companies, HMOs, etc, that is.
>>>
>>>How would we spend "less on health care" ? Instead of paying for health
>>>insurance we would pay *AT LEAST* that much in additional taxes.
>>>
>>>
>> Why is it, then, that every western European nation, plus Canada and Japan,
>> spend less per capita on health care than the US yet still cover everybody?
>
>Answer a question with a question. How does your state run health care
>system cost less than the current private one?
>
>
Because all the examples we have of state-run health care say it would.
Economy of scale, negotiation for lower prices, preventative care instead of
waiting until the person becomes sick -- all these and other factors.

 

In article <vsq63d41c6ose2@corp.supernews.com>,
"The Ancient One" <onlytheone@thetopknows.com> wrote:
>
>"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
>news:bqinb6$him$8@puck.cc.emory.edu...
>> In article <QA3zb.1107$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.
>>
>
>Explain then Lloyd why bus loads of Canadians with life threating health
>problems are forced to come to the USA for treatment at their own expense.
>Sure they can get free care in Canada, IF they can wait 6 months to a year
>for treatment.



>
>
>> 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 <vsq63d41c6ose2@corp.supernews.com>,
"The Ancient One" <onlytheone@thetopknows.com> wrote:
>
>"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
>news:bqinb6$him$8@puck.cc.emory.edu...
>> In article <QA3zb.1107$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.
>>
>
>Explain then Lloyd why bus loads of Canadians with life threating health
>problems are forced to come to the USA for treatment at their own expense.
>Sure they can get free care in Canada, IF they can wait 6 months to a year
>for treatment.



>
>
>> 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 <vsq63d41c6ose2@corp.supernews.com>,
"The Ancient One" <onlytheone@thetopknows.com> wrote:
>
>"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
>news:bqinb6$him$8@puck.cc.emory.edu...
>> In article <QA3zb.1107$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.
>>
>
>Explain then Lloyd why bus loads of Canadians with life threating health
>problems are forced to come to the USA for treatment at their own expense.
>Sure they can get free care in Canada, IF they can wait 6 months to a year
>for treatment.



>
>
>> 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 <vsq63d41c6ose2@corp.supernews.com>,
"The Ancient One" <onlytheone@thetopknows.com> wrote:
>
>"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
>news:bqinb6$him$8@puck.cc.emory.edu...
>> In article <QA3zb.1107$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.
>>
>
>Explain then Lloyd why bus loads of Canadians with life threating health
>problems are forced to come to the USA for treatment at their own expense.
>Sure they can get free care in Canada, IF they can wait 6 months to a year
>for treatment.
>
>

Like asking why people travel to Mexico for Christmas trees. It simply does
not happen.

Read, for example,
http://www.worldpolicy.org/globalrig...da-health.html

or

http://www-2.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs.cmu.e.../HealthCare/Co
nsumerReports-Sep92.html.gz#Does%20Canada%20Have%20The%20Answer?

>> 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 <vsq63d41c6ose2@corp.supernews.com>,
"The Ancient One" <onlytheone@thetopknows.com> wrote:
>
>"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
>news:bqinb6$him$8@puck.cc.emory.edu...
>> In article <QA3zb.1107$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.
>>
>
>Explain then Lloyd why bus loads of Canadians with life threating health
>problems are forced to come to the USA for treatment at their own expense.
>Sure they can get free care in Canada, IF they can wait 6 months to a year
>for treatment.
>
>

Like asking why people travel to Mexico for Christmas trees. It simply does
not happen.

Read, for example,
http://www.worldpolicy.org/globalrig...da-health.html

or

http://www-2.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs.cmu.e.../HealthCare/Co
nsumerReports-Sep92.html.gz#Does%20Canada%20Have%20The%20Answer?

>> 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
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>
>