Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
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
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>
>
"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
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>
>
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
In article <vsq6brasmia4ca@corp.supernews.com>,
"The Ancient One" <onlytheone@thetopknows.com> wrote:
>
>"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
>news:bqit3e$of5$1@puck.cc.emory.edu...
>> In article <Us5zb.282500$275.1000782@attbi_s53>,
>> tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
>> >In article <bqinb6$him$8@puck.cc.emory.edu>, Lloyd Parker wrote:
>> >
>> >> Yeah, it'd be terrible if everybody were covered and we spent less on
>> health
>> >> care, as Europe, Canada, and Japan do, wouldn't it? Terrible for
>insurance
>> >> companies, drug companies, HMOs, etc, that is.
>> >
>> >How would we spend "less on health care" ? Instead of paying for health
>> >insurance we would pay *AT LEAST* that much in additional taxes.
>> >
>> >
>> Why is it, then, that every western European nation, plus Canada and
>Japan,
>> spend less per capita on health care than the US yet still cover
>everybody?
>
>They don't. If you're Canadian and the Doctor discovers a cancerous tumor
>that needs immediate treatment, they have to come to the USA to get it, in
>Canada, with a set health budget, you wait six months to a year for
>treatment, until the government can "afford" to pay for your "free"
>treatment. If you happen to die first great, less money they have to spend.
>You really are stupid aren't you?
You must be, if you think we believe these lies.
>
>
"The Ancient One" <onlytheone@thetopknows.com> wrote:
>
>"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
>news:bqit3e$of5$1@puck.cc.emory.edu...
>> In article <Us5zb.282500$275.1000782@attbi_s53>,
>> tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
>> >In article <bqinb6$him$8@puck.cc.emory.edu>, Lloyd Parker wrote:
>> >
>> >> Yeah, it'd be terrible if everybody were covered and we spent less on
>> health
>> >> care, as Europe, Canada, and Japan do, wouldn't it? Terrible for
>insurance
>> >> companies, drug companies, HMOs, etc, that is.
>> >
>> >How would we spend "less on health care" ? Instead of paying for health
>> >insurance we would pay *AT LEAST* that much in additional taxes.
>> >
>> >
>> Why is it, then, that every western European nation, plus Canada and
>Japan,
>> spend less per capita on health care than the US yet still cover
>everybody?
>
>They don't. If you're Canadian and the Doctor discovers a cancerous tumor
>that needs immediate treatment, they have to come to the USA to get it, in
>Canada, with a set health budget, you wait six months to a year for
>treatment, until the government can "afford" to pay for your "free"
>treatment. If you happen to die first great, less money they have to spend.
>You really are stupid aren't you?
You must be, if you think we believe these lies.
>
>
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
In article <vsq6brasmia4ca@corp.supernews.com>,
"The Ancient One" <onlytheone@thetopknows.com> wrote:
>
>"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
>news:bqit3e$of5$1@puck.cc.emory.edu...
>> In article <Us5zb.282500$275.1000782@attbi_s53>,
>> tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
>> >In article <bqinb6$him$8@puck.cc.emory.edu>, Lloyd Parker wrote:
>> >
>> >> Yeah, it'd be terrible if everybody were covered and we spent less on
>> health
>> >> care, as Europe, Canada, and Japan do, wouldn't it? Terrible for
>insurance
>> >> companies, drug companies, HMOs, etc, that is.
>> >
>> >How would we spend "less on health care" ? Instead of paying for health
>> >insurance we would pay *AT LEAST* that much in additional taxes.
>> >
>> >
>> Why is it, then, that every western European nation, plus Canada and
>Japan,
>> spend less per capita on health care than the US yet still cover
>everybody?
>
>They don't. If you're Canadian and the Doctor discovers a cancerous tumor
>that needs immediate treatment, they have to come to the USA to get it, in
>Canada, with a set health budget, you wait six months to a year for
>treatment, until the government can "afford" to pay for your "free"
>treatment. If you happen to die first great, less money they have to spend.
>You really are stupid aren't you?
You must be, if you think we believe these lies.
>
>
"The Ancient One" <onlytheone@thetopknows.com> wrote:
>
>"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
>news:bqit3e$of5$1@puck.cc.emory.edu...
>> In article <Us5zb.282500$275.1000782@attbi_s53>,
>> tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
>> >In article <bqinb6$him$8@puck.cc.emory.edu>, Lloyd Parker wrote:
>> >
>> >> Yeah, it'd be terrible if everybody were covered and we spent less on
>> health
>> >> care, as Europe, Canada, and Japan do, wouldn't it? Terrible for
>insurance
>> >> companies, drug companies, HMOs, etc, that is.
>> >
>> >How would we spend "less on health care" ? Instead of paying for health
>> >insurance we would pay *AT LEAST* that much in additional taxes.
>> >
>> >
>> Why is it, then, that every western European nation, plus Canada and
>Japan,
>> spend less per capita on health care than the US yet still cover
>everybody?
>
>They don't. If you're Canadian and the Doctor discovers a cancerous tumor
>that needs immediate treatment, they have to come to the USA to get it, in
>Canada, with a set health budget, you wait six months to a year for
>treatment, until the government can "afford" to pay for your "free"
>treatment. If you happen to die first great, less money they have to spend.
>You really are stupid aren't you?
You must be, if you think we believe these lies.
>
>
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
In article <vsq6brasmia4ca@corp.supernews.com>,
"The Ancient One" <onlytheone@thetopknows.com> wrote:
>
>"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
>news:bqit3e$of5$1@puck.cc.emory.edu...
>> In article <Us5zb.282500$275.1000782@attbi_s53>,
>> tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
>> >In article <bqinb6$him$8@puck.cc.emory.edu>, Lloyd Parker wrote:
>> >
>> >> Yeah, it'd be terrible if everybody were covered and we spent less on
>> health
>> >> care, as Europe, Canada, and Japan do, wouldn't it? Terrible for
>insurance
>> >> companies, drug companies, HMOs, etc, that is.
>> >
>> >How would we spend "less on health care" ? Instead of paying for health
>> >insurance we would pay *AT LEAST* that much in additional taxes.
>> >
>> >
>> Why is it, then, that every western European nation, plus Canada and
>Japan,
>> spend less per capita on health care than the US yet still cover
>everybody?
>
>They don't. If you're Canadian and the Doctor discovers a cancerous tumor
>that needs immediate treatment, they have to come to the USA to get it, in
>Canada, with a set health budget, you wait six months to a year for
>treatment, until the government can "afford" to pay for your "free"
>treatment. If you happen to die first great, less money they have to spend.
>You really are stupid aren't you?
You must be, if you think we believe these lies.
>
>
"The Ancient One" <onlytheone@thetopknows.com> wrote:
>
>"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
>news:bqit3e$of5$1@puck.cc.emory.edu...
>> In article <Us5zb.282500$275.1000782@attbi_s53>,
>> tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
>> >In article <bqinb6$him$8@puck.cc.emory.edu>, Lloyd Parker wrote:
>> >
>> >> Yeah, it'd be terrible if everybody were covered and we spent less on
>> health
>> >> care, as Europe, Canada, and Japan do, wouldn't it? Terrible for
>insurance
>> >> companies, drug companies, HMOs, etc, that is.
>> >
>> >How would we spend "less on health care" ? Instead of paying for health
>> >insurance we would pay *AT LEAST* that much in additional taxes.
>> >
>> >
>> Why is it, then, that every western European nation, plus Canada and
>Japan,
>> spend less per capita on health care than the US yet still cover
>everybody?
>
>They don't. If you're Canadian and the Doctor discovers a cancerous tumor
>that needs immediate treatment, they have to come to the USA to get it, in
>Canada, with a set health budget, you wait six months to a year for
>treatment, until the government can "afford" to pay for your "free"
>treatment. If you happen to die first great, less money they have to spend.
>You really are stupid aren't you?
You must be, if you think we believe these lies.
>
>
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
In article <vsq6jtru8cnd96@corp.supernews.com>,
"The Ancient One" <onlytheone@thetopknows.com> wrote:
>
>"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
>news:bqitfk$of5$4@puck.cc.emory.edu...
>> In article <3FCCEA4D.9F9665EC@greg.greg>, Greg <greg@greg.greg> wrote:
>> >Lloyd Parker wrote:
>> >
>> >> Yeah, it'd be terrible if everybody were covered and we spent less on
>> health
>> >> care, as Europe, Canada, and Japan do, wouldn't it? Terrible for
>insurance
>> >> companies, drug companies, HMOs, etc, that is.
>> >
>> >Many HMOs are not even for profit.
>>
>> Huh? They're all run by insurance companies, and they sure are for
>profit.
>> In most states, even Blue Cross is now for profit.
>>
>>
>> > And let's attack drug companies and put them
>> >out of business.
>>
>> 1. They earn a greater return on capital than any other industry.
>> 2. They take drugs discovered and tested with tax-funded research and make
>> huge profits on them.
>> 3. They do fine in other countries where they aren't allowed such
>exorbitant
>> profits.
>>
>>
>> > After all we can all just invent our own miracle drugs,
>>
>> Most are -- most new drugs come out of government-funded university
>research.
>>
>>
>> >so who
>> >needs pharmecutical companies? I'm sure you've contributed even more
>useful
>> drugs
>> >than average given your superior chemistry background. Finally, having
>the
>> >government do as a monopoly what the private sector can do is socialism
>you'd
>> end
>> >up spending far more under your socialism plan.
>> >
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> But why not a single-payer, like Canada then? You wouldn't have
>national
>> >> health care, just national health insurance.
>> >
>> >Huh? Even HillaryClintonCare was forecast to cost in double digit
>TRILLIONS
>> of
>> >dollars.
>>
>> And what do you think we spend now on health care?
>>
>>
>> > And yes, the Canada care system with its people fleeing to the US to get
>> >needed healthcare would be an improvement in your alternate reality.
>>
>> Totally false.
>
>Totally true, reported many times in the news. Stop lying Parker, it doesn't
>work, we are all smarter than you, even my dog.
It's false. Totally, absolutely false. Read:
http://www-2.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs.cmu.e.../HealthCare/Co
nsumerReports-Sep92.html.gz#Does%20Canada%20Have%20The%20Answer?
>
>>
>>
>> > Trouble is
>> >where would the US people go that needed urgent care with the Canada
>system
>> here?
>> >
>> Why are Canadian retirees moving back to Canada? Why are American seniors
>> going their for their medicine?
>
>
>Big difference between buying medicine and receiving medical treatment, but
>you knew that, you just enjoy lying.
>
>
"The Ancient One" <onlytheone@thetopknows.com> wrote:
>
>"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
>news:bqitfk$of5$4@puck.cc.emory.edu...
>> In article <3FCCEA4D.9F9665EC@greg.greg>, Greg <greg@greg.greg> wrote:
>> >Lloyd Parker wrote:
>> >
>> >> Yeah, it'd be terrible if everybody were covered and we spent less on
>> health
>> >> care, as Europe, Canada, and Japan do, wouldn't it? Terrible for
>insurance
>> >> companies, drug companies, HMOs, etc, that is.
>> >
>> >Many HMOs are not even for profit.
>>
>> Huh? They're all run by insurance companies, and they sure are for
>profit.
>> In most states, even Blue Cross is now for profit.
>>
>>
>> > And let's attack drug companies and put them
>> >out of business.
>>
>> 1. They earn a greater return on capital than any other industry.
>> 2. They take drugs discovered and tested with tax-funded research and make
>> huge profits on them.
>> 3. They do fine in other countries where they aren't allowed such
>exorbitant
>> profits.
>>
>>
>> > After all we can all just invent our own miracle drugs,
>>
>> Most are -- most new drugs come out of government-funded university
>research.
>>
>>
>> >so who
>> >needs pharmecutical companies? I'm sure you've contributed even more
>useful
>> drugs
>> >than average given your superior chemistry background. Finally, having
>the
>> >government do as a monopoly what the private sector can do is socialism
>you'd
>> end
>> >up spending far more under your socialism plan.
>> >
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> But why not a single-payer, like Canada then? You wouldn't have
>national
>> >> health care, just national health insurance.
>> >
>> >Huh? Even HillaryClintonCare was forecast to cost in double digit
>TRILLIONS
>> of
>> >dollars.
>>
>> And what do you think we spend now on health care?
>>
>>
>> > And yes, the Canada care system with its people fleeing to the US to get
>> >needed healthcare would be an improvement in your alternate reality.
>>
>> Totally false.
>
>Totally true, reported many times in the news. Stop lying Parker, it doesn't
>work, we are all smarter than you, even my dog.
It's false. Totally, absolutely false. Read:
http://www-2.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs.cmu.e.../HealthCare/Co
nsumerReports-Sep92.html.gz#Does%20Canada%20Have%20The%20Answer?
>
>>
>>
>> > Trouble is
>> >where would the US people go that needed urgent care with the Canada
>system
>> here?
>> >
>> Why are Canadian retirees moving back to Canada? Why are American seniors
>> going their for their medicine?
>
>
>Big difference between buying medicine and receiving medical treatment, but
>you knew that, you just enjoy lying.
>
>
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
In article <vsq6jtru8cnd96@corp.supernews.com>,
"The Ancient One" <onlytheone@thetopknows.com> wrote:
>
>"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
>news:bqitfk$of5$4@puck.cc.emory.edu...
>> In article <3FCCEA4D.9F9665EC@greg.greg>, Greg <greg@greg.greg> wrote:
>> >Lloyd Parker wrote:
>> >
>> >> Yeah, it'd be terrible if everybody were covered and we spent less on
>> health
>> >> care, as Europe, Canada, and Japan do, wouldn't it? Terrible for
>insurance
>> >> companies, drug companies, HMOs, etc, that is.
>> >
>> >Many HMOs are not even for profit.
>>
>> Huh? They're all run by insurance companies, and they sure are for
>profit.
>> In most states, even Blue Cross is now for profit.
>>
>>
>> > And let's attack drug companies and put them
>> >out of business.
>>
>> 1. They earn a greater return on capital than any other industry.
>> 2. They take drugs discovered and tested with tax-funded research and make
>> huge profits on them.
>> 3. They do fine in other countries where they aren't allowed such
>exorbitant
>> profits.
>>
>>
>> > After all we can all just invent our own miracle drugs,
>>
>> Most are -- most new drugs come out of government-funded university
>research.
>>
>>
>> >so who
>> >needs pharmecutical companies? I'm sure you've contributed even more
>useful
>> drugs
>> >than average given your superior chemistry background. Finally, having
>the
>> >government do as a monopoly what the private sector can do is socialism
>you'd
>> end
>> >up spending far more under your socialism plan.
>> >
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> But why not a single-payer, like Canada then? You wouldn't have
>national
>> >> health care, just national health insurance.
>> >
>> >Huh? Even HillaryClintonCare was forecast to cost in double digit
>TRILLIONS
>> of
>> >dollars.
>>
>> And what do you think we spend now on health care?
>>
>>
>> > And yes, the Canada care system with its people fleeing to the US to get
>> >needed healthcare would be an improvement in your alternate reality.
>>
>> Totally false.
>
>Totally true, reported many times in the news. Stop lying Parker, it doesn't
>work, we are all smarter than you, even my dog.
It's false. Totally, absolutely false. Read:
http://www-2.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs.cmu.e.../HealthCare/Co
nsumerReports-Sep92.html.gz#Does%20Canada%20Have%20The%20Answer?
>
>>
>>
>> > Trouble is
>> >where would the US people go that needed urgent care with the Canada
>system
>> here?
>> >
>> Why are Canadian retirees moving back to Canada? Why are American seniors
>> going their for their medicine?
>
>
>Big difference between buying medicine and receiving medical treatment, but
>you knew that, you just enjoy lying.
>
>
"The Ancient One" <onlytheone@thetopknows.com> wrote:
>
>"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
>news:bqitfk$of5$4@puck.cc.emory.edu...
>> In article <3FCCEA4D.9F9665EC@greg.greg>, Greg <greg@greg.greg> wrote:
>> >Lloyd Parker wrote:
>> >
>> >> Yeah, it'd be terrible if everybody were covered and we spent less on
>> health
>> >> care, as Europe, Canada, and Japan do, wouldn't it? Terrible for
>insurance
>> >> companies, drug companies, HMOs, etc, that is.
>> >
>> >Many HMOs are not even for profit.
>>
>> Huh? They're all run by insurance companies, and they sure are for
>profit.
>> In most states, even Blue Cross is now for profit.
>>
>>
>> > And let's attack drug companies and put them
>> >out of business.
>>
>> 1. They earn a greater return on capital than any other industry.
>> 2. They take drugs discovered and tested with tax-funded research and make
>> huge profits on them.
>> 3. They do fine in other countries where they aren't allowed such
>exorbitant
>> profits.
>>
>>
>> > After all we can all just invent our own miracle drugs,
>>
>> Most are -- most new drugs come out of government-funded university
>research.
>>
>>
>> >so who
>> >needs pharmecutical companies? I'm sure you've contributed even more
>useful
>> drugs
>> >than average given your superior chemistry background. Finally, having
>the
>> >government do as a monopoly what the private sector can do is socialism
>you'd
>> end
>> >up spending far more under your socialism plan.
>> >
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> But why not a single-payer, like Canada then? You wouldn't have
>national
>> >> health care, just national health insurance.
>> >
>> >Huh? Even HillaryClintonCare was forecast to cost in double digit
>TRILLIONS
>> of
>> >dollars.
>>
>> And what do you think we spend now on health care?
>>
>>
>> > And yes, the Canada care system with its people fleeing to the US to get
>> >needed healthcare would be an improvement in your alternate reality.
>>
>> Totally false.
>
>Totally true, reported many times in the news. Stop lying Parker, it doesn't
>work, we are all smarter than you, even my dog.
It's false. Totally, absolutely false. Read:
http://www-2.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs.cmu.e.../HealthCare/Co
nsumerReports-Sep92.html.gz#Does%20Canada%20Have%20The%20Answer?
>
>>
>>
>> > Trouble is
>> >where would the US people go that needed urgent care with the Canada
>system
>> here?
>> >
>> Why are Canadian retirees moving back to Canada? Why are American seniors
>> going their for their medicine?
>
>
>Big difference between buying medicine and receiving medical treatment, but
>you knew that, you just enjoy lying.
>
>
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
In article <vsq6jtru8cnd96@corp.supernews.com>,
"The Ancient One" <onlytheone@thetopknows.com> wrote:
>
>"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
>news:bqitfk$of5$4@puck.cc.emory.edu...
>> In article <3FCCEA4D.9F9665EC@greg.greg>, Greg <greg@greg.greg> wrote:
>> >Lloyd Parker wrote:
>> >
>> >> Yeah, it'd be terrible if everybody were covered and we spent less on
>> health
>> >> care, as Europe, Canada, and Japan do, wouldn't it? Terrible for
>insurance
>> >> companies, drug companies, HMOs, etc, that is.
>> >
>> >Many HMOs are not even for profit.
>>
>> Huh? They're all run by insurance companies, and they sure are for
>profit.
>> In most states, even Blue Cross is now for profit.
>>
>>
>> > And let's attack drug companies and put them
>> >out of business.
>>
>> 1. They earn a greater return on capital than any other industry.
>> 2. They take drugs discovered and tested with tax-funded research and make
>> huge profits on them.
>> 3. They do fine in other countries where they aren't allowed such
>exorbitant
>> profits.
>>
>>
>> > After all we can all just invent our own miracle drugs,
>>
>> Most are -- most new drugs come out of government-funded university
>research.
>>
>>
>> >so who
>> >needs pharmecutical companies? I'm sure you've contributed even more
>useful
>> drugs
>> >than average given your superior chemistry background. Finally, having
>the
>> >government do as a monopoly what the private sector can do is socialism
>you'd
>> end
>> >up spending far more under your socialism plan.
>> >
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> But why not a single-payer, like Canada then? You wouldn't have
>national
>> >> health care, just national health insurance.
>> >
>> >Huh? Even HillaryClintonCare was forecast to cost in double digit
>TRILLIONS
>> of
>> >dollars.
>>
>> And what do you think we spend now on health care?
>>
>>
>> > And yes, the Canada care system with its people fleeing to the US to get
>> >needed healthcare would be an improvement in your alternate reality.
>>
>> Totally false.
>
>Totally true, reported many times in the news. Stop lying Parker, it doesn't
>work, we are all smarter than you, even my dog.
It's false. Totally, absolutely false. Read:
http://www-2.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs.cmu.e.../HealthCare/Co
nsumerReports-Sep92.html.gz#Does%20Canada%20Have%20The%20Answer?
>
>>
>>
>> > Trouble is
>> >where would the US people go that needed urgent care with the Canada
>system
>> here?
>> >
>> Why are Canadian retirees moving back to Canada? Why are American seniors
>> going their for their medicine?
>
>
>Big difference between buying medicine and receiving medical treatment, but
>you knew that, you just enjoy lying.
>
>
"The Ancient One" <onlytheone@thetopknows.com> wrote:
>
>"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
>news:bqitfk$of5$4@puck.cc.emory.edu...
>> In article <3FCCEA4D.9F9665EC@greg.greg>, Greg <greg@greg.greg> wrote:
>> >Lloyd Parker wrote:
>> >
>> >> Yeah, it'd be terrible if everybody were covered and we spent less on
>> health
>> >> care, as Europe, Canada, and Japan do, wouldn't it? Terrible for
>insurance
>> >> companies, drug companies, HMOs, etc, that is.
>> >
>> >Many HMOs are not even for profit.
>>
>> Huh? They're all run by insurance companies, and they sure are for
>profit.
>> In most states, even Blue Cross is now for profit.
>>
>>
>> > And let's attack drug companies and put them
>> >out of business.
>>
>> 1. They earn a greater return on capital than any other industry.
>> 2. They take drugs discovered and tested with tax-funded research and make
>> huge profits on them.
>> 3. They do fine in other countries where they aren't allowed such
>exorbitant
>> profits.
>>
>>
>> > After all we can all just invent our own miracle drugs,
>>
>> Most are -- most new drugs come out of government-funded university
>research.
>>
>>
>> >so who
>> >needs pharmecutical companies? I'm sure you've contributed even more
>useful
>> drugs
>> >than average given your superior chemistry background. Finally, having
>the
>> >government do as a monopoly what the private sector can do is socialism
>you'd
>> end
>> >up spending far more under your socialism plan.
>> >
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> But why not a single-payer, like Canada then? You wouldn't have
>national
>> >> health care, just national health insurance.
>> >
>> >Huh? Even HillaryClintonCare was forecast to cost in double digit
>TRILLIONS
>> of
>> >dollars.
>>
>> And what do you think we spend now on health care?
>>
>>
>> > And yes, the Canada care system with its people fleeing to the US to get
>> >needed healthcare would be an improvement in your alternate reality.
>>
>> Totally false.
>
>Totally true, reported many times in the news. Stop lying Parker, it doesn't
>work, we are all smarter than you, even my dog.
It's false. Totally, absolutely false. Read:
http://www-2.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs.cmu.e.../HealthCare/Co
nsumerReports-Sep92.html.gz#Does%20Canada%20Have%20The%20Answer?
>
>>
>>
>> > Trouble is
>> >where would the US people go that needed urgent care with the Canada
>system
>> here?
>> >
>> Why are Canadian retirees moving back to Canada? Why are American seniors
>> going their for their medicine?
>
>
>Big difference between buying medicine and receiving medical treatment, but
>you knew that, you just enjoy lying.
>
>
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
In article <2c7qsvgrtldnv0d50g0u57c2j0cadcc7if@4ax.com>,
Bill Funk <bfunk33@pipping.com> wrote:
>On Tue, 02 Dec 03 15:37:02 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.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?
>
>Lloyd, you might want to do a Google search on the keywords:
>canadian health care problems
>This would let you see reality instead of the utopia your liberal
>friends promise.
>
Oh great, he wants me to absorb his right-wing propaganda.
Try this:
http://www-2.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs.cmu.e.../HealthCare/Co
nsumerReports-Sep92.html.gz#Does%20Canada%20Have%20The%20Answer?
Bill Funk <bfunk33@pipping.com> wrote:
>On Tue, 02 Dec 03 15:37:02 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.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?
>
>Lloyd, you might want to do a Google search on the keywords:
>canadian health care problems
>This would let you see reality instead of the utopia your liberal
>friends promise.
>
Oh great, he wants me to absorb his right-wing propaganda.
Try this:
http://www-2.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs.cmu.e.../HealthCare/Co
nsumerReports-Sep92.html.gz#Does%20Canada%20Have%20The%20Answer?
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
In article <2c7qsvgrtldnv0d50g0u57c2j0cadcc7if@4ax.com>,
Bill Funk <bfunk33@pipping.com> wrote:
>On Tue, 02 Dec 03 15:37:02 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.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?
>
>Lloyd, you might want to do a Google search on the keywords:
>canadian health care problems
>This would let you see reality instead of the utopia your liberal
>friends promise.
>
Oh great, he wants me to absorb his right-wing propaganda.
Try this:
http://www-2.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs.cmu.e.../HealthCare/Co
nsumerReports-Sep92.html.gz#Does%20Canada%20Have%20The%20Answer?
Bill Funk <bfunk33@pipping.com> wrote:
>On Tue, 02 Dec 03 15:37:02 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.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?
>
>Lloyd, you might want to do a Google search on the keywords:
>canadian health care problems
>This would let you see reality instead of the utopia your liberal
>friends promise.
>
Oh great, he wants me to absorb his right-wing propaganda.
Try this:
http://www-2.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs.cmu.e.../HealthCare/Co
nsumerReports-Sep92.html.gz#Does%20Canada%20Have%20The%20Answer?
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
In article <2c7qsvgrtldnv0d50g0u57c2j0cadcc7if@4ax.com>,
Bill Funk <bfunk33@pipping.com> wrote:
>On Tue, 02 Dec 03 15:37:02 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.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?
>
>Lloyd, you might want to do a Google search on the keywords:
>canadian health care problems
>This would let you see reality instead of the utopia your liberal
>friends promise.
>
Oh great, he wants me to absorb his right-wing propaganda.
Try this:
http://www-2.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs.cmu.e.../HealthCare/Co
nsumerReports-Sep92.html.gz#Does%20Canada%20Have%20The%20Answer?
Bill Funk <bfunk33@pipping.com> wrote:
>On Tue, 02 Dec 03 15:37:02 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.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?
>
>Lloyd, you might want to do a Google search on the keywords:
>canadian health care problems
>This would let you see reality instead of the utopia your liberal
>friends promise.
>
Oh great, he wants me to absorb his right-wing propaganda.
Try this:
http://www-2.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs.cmu.e.../HealthCare/Co
nsumerReports-Sep92.html.gz#Does%20Canada%20Have%20The%20Answer?
