Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
#5571
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
In article <bql0h3$c29$4@puck.cc.emory.edu>, Lloyd Parker wrote:
> tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
>>In article <bqit3e$of5$1@puck.cc.emory.edu>, Lloyd Parker wrote:
>>> tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
>>>>In article <bqinb6$him$8@puck.cc.emory.edu>, Lloyd Parker wrote:
>>>>> Yeah, it'd be terrible if everybody were covered and we spent less on health
>>>>> care, as Europe, Canada, and Japan do, wouldn't it? Terrible for insurance
>>>>> companies, drug companies, HMOs, etc, that is.
>>>>How would we spend "less on health care" ? Instead of paying for health
>>>>insurance we would pay *AT LEAST* that much in additional taxes.
>>> Why is it, then, that every western European nation, plus Canada and Japan,
>>> spend less per capita on health care than the US yet still cover everybody?
>>Answer a question with a question. How does your state run health care
>>system cost less than the current private one?
> Because all the examples we have of state-run health care say it would.
> Economy of scale, negotiation for lower prices, preventative care instead of
> waiting until the person becomes sick -- all these and other factors.
So your answer is we would save money through the reduced quality of care.
I suggest you gain some experience with how government price controls
have a negative impact on care, at least with regards to how it works
in the USA.
> tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
>>In article <bqit3e$of5$1@puck.cc.emory.edu>, Lloyd Parker wrote:
>>> tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
>>>>In article <bqinb6$him$8@puck.cc.emory.edu>, Lloyd Parker wrote:
>>>>> Yeah, it'd be terrible if everybody were covered and we spent less on health
>>>>> care, as Europe, Canada, and Japan do, wouldn't it? Terrible for insurance
>>>>> companies, drug companies, HMOs, etc, that is.
>>>>How would we spend "less on health care" ? Instead of paying for health
>>>>insurance we would pay *AT LEAST* that much in additional taxes.
>>> Why is it, then, that every western European nation, plus Canada and Japan,
>>> spend less per capita on health care than the US yet still cover everybody?
>>Answer a question with a question. How does your state run health care
>>system cost less than the current private one?
> Because all the examples we have of state-run health care say it would.
> Economy of scale, negotiation for lower prices, preventative care instead of
> waiting until the person becomes sick -- all these and other factors.
So your answer is we would save money through the reduced quality of care.
I suggest you gain some experience with how government price controls
have a negative impact on care, at least with regards to how it works
in the USA.
#5572
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
In article <bql0h3$c29$4@puck.cc.emory.edu>, Lloyd Parker wrote:
> tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
>>In article <bqit3e$of5$1@puck.cc.emory.edu>, Lloyd Parker wrote:
>>> tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
>>>>In article <bqinb6$him$8@puck.cc.emory.edu>, Lloyd Parker wrote:
>>>>> Yeah, it'd be terrible if everybody were covered and we spent less on health
>>>>> care, as Europe, Canada, and Japan do, wouldn't it? Terrible for insurance
>>>>> companies, drug companies, HMOs, etc, that is.
>>>>How would we spend "less on health care" ? Instead of paying for health
>>>>insurance we would pay *AT LEAST* that much in additional taxes.
>>> Why is it, then, that every western European nation, plus Canada and Japan,
>>> spend less per capita on health care than the US yet still cover everybody?
>>Answer a question with a question. How does your state run health care
>>system cost less than the current private one?
> Because all the examples we have of state-run health care say it would.
> Economy of scale, negotiation for lower prices, preventative care instead of
> waiting until the person becomes sick -- all these and other factors.
So your answer is we would save money through the reduced quality of care.
I suggest you gain some experience with how government price controls
have a negative impact on care, at least with regards to how it works
in the USA.
> tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
>>In article <bqit3e$of5$1@puck.cc.emory.edu>, Lloyd Parker wrote:
>>> tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
>>>>In article <bqinb6$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.
So your answer is we would save money through the reduced quality of care.
I suggest you gain some experience with how government price controls
have a negative impact on care, at least with regards to how it works
in the USA.
#5573
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safetycan be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
David J. Allen wrote:
> 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.
Exactly. That's the only way he can "win" the debate, which is why those
(inaccurate) labels keep getting thrown at the wall in hope they'll stick.
> 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.
Exactly. That's the only way he can "win" the debate, which is why those
(inaccurate) labels keep getting thrown at the wall in hope they'll stick.
#5574
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safetycan be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
David J. Allen wrote:
> 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.
Exactly. That's the only way he can "win" the debate, which is why those
(inaccurate) labels keep getting thrown at the wall in hope they'll stick.
> 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.
Exactly. That's the only way he can "win" the debate, which is why those
(inaccurate) labels keep getting thrown at the wall in hope they'll stick.
#5575
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safetycan be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
David J. Allen wrote:
> 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.
Exactly. That's the only way he can "win" the debate, which is why those
(inaccurate) labels keep getting thrown at the wall in hope they'll stick.
> 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.
Exactly. That's the only way he can "win" the debate, which is why those
(inaccurate) labels keep getting thrown at the wall in hope they'll stick.
#5576
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
In article <bql0dl$c29$2@puck.cc.emory.edu>, Lloyd Parker wrote:
>>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.
Parker once again shows that he has no concept of the inner workings of
an automobile. Old engines do not get exemptions either. They are held
to the standards of era they came from. A new carb and new pistons, hell
an entire rebuild won't make a 1973 auto pass 2003 new car emissions.
I doubt a 1973 could even pass IM240 for a 2003. (idle test is a
different story since at least for IL, before they went to IM240, the
requirements were the same for 1982 on up)
>>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.
Parker once again shows that he has no concept of the inner workings of
an automobile. Old engines do not get exemptions either. They are held
to the standards of era they came from. A new carb and new pistons, hell
an entire rebuild won't make a 1973 auto pass 2003 new car emissions.
I doubt a 1973 could even pass IM240 for a 2003. (idle test is a
different story since at least for IL, before they went to IM240, the
requirements were the same for 1982 on up)
#5577
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
In article <bql0dl$c29$2@puck.cc.emory.edu>, Lloyd Parker wrote:
>>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.
Parker once again shows that he has no concept of the inner workings of
an automobile. Old engines do not get exemptions either. They are held
to the standards of era they came from. A new carb and new pistons, hell
an entire rebuild won't make a 1973 auto pass 2003 new car emissions.
I doubt a 1973 could even pass IM240 for a 2003. (idle test is a
different story since at least for IL, before they went to IM240, the
requirements were the same for 1982 on up)
>>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.
Parker once again shows that he has no concept of the inner workings of
an automobile. Old engines do not get exemptions either. They are held
to the standards of era they came from. A new carb and new pistons, hell
an entire rebuild won't make a 1973 auto pass 2003 new car emissions.
I doubt a 1973 could even pass IM240 for a 2003. (idle test is a
different story since at least for IL, before they went to IM240, the
requirements were the same for 1982 on up)
#5578
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
In article <bql0dl$c29$2@puck.cc.emory.edu>, Lloyd Parker wrote:
>>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.
Parker once again shows that he has no concept of the inner workings of
an automobile. Old engines do not get exemptions either. They are held
to the standards of era they came from. A new carb and new pistons, hell
an entire rebuild won't make a 1973 auto pass 2003 new car emissions.
I doubt a 1973 could even pass IM240 for a 2003. (idle test is a
different story since at least for IL, before they went to IM240, the
requirements were the same for 1982 on up)
>>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.
Parker once again shows that he has no concept of the inner workings of
an automobile. Old engines do not get exemptions either. They are held
to the standards of era they came from. A new carb and new pistons, hell
an entire rebuild won't make a 1973 auto pass 2003 new car emissions.
I doubt a 1973 could even pass IM240 for a 2003. (idle test is a
different story since at least for IL, before they went to IM240, the
requirements were the same for 1982 on up)
#5579
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safetycan be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
Jerry McG wrote:
> "C. E. White" <cewhite3@mindspring.com> wrote in message
> news:3F7CE3E2.B772E342@mindspring.com...
>
>>
>>Lloyd Parker wrote:
>>
>>
>>>So are conservatives -- telling people what kind of --- to have, what
>
> genders
>
>>>can marry, what a woman can do with her body, etc.
>>
>>It is not just conservatives who oppose the redefinition of "marriage."
>>Any reasonable person should oppose this sort of reckless redefinition
>>of a long established legal / social / religious institution. If same
>>--- couples want to form a long term commitment to each other, I think
>>that is fine. If they feel they need a governmental sanction to this
>>commitment, then pass a law that creates a new class of civil union. But
>>trying to call this a "marriage" is an insult to millions of American
>>and serves no useful purpose.
>>
>>Ed
>
>
> Oh, sure it does, Ed, if recognized as "marriage" they then get huge tax
> and benefits advantages, all of which are denied singles.
The "new class of civil union" would cover that just fine.
> "C. E. White" <cewhite3@mindspring.com> wrote in message
> news:3F7CE3E2.B772E342@mindspring.com...
>
>>
>>Lloyd Parker wrote:
>>
>>
>>>So are conservatives -- telling people what kind of --- to have, what
>
> genders
>
>>>can marry, what a woman can do with her body, etc.
>>
>>It is not just conservatives who oppose the redefinition of "marriage."
>>Any reasonable person should oppose this sort of reckless redefinition
>>of a long established legal / social / religious institution. If same
>>--- couples want to form a long term commitment to each other, I think
>>that is fine. If they feel they need a governmental sanction to this
>>commitment, then pass a law that creates a new class of civil union. But
>>trying to call this a "marriage" is an insult to millions of American
>>and serves no useful purpose.
>>
>>Ed
>
>
> Oh, sure it does, Ed, if recognized as "marriage" they then get huge tax
> and benefits advantages, all of which are denied singles.
The "new class of civil union" would cover that just fine.
#5580
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safetycan be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
Jerry McG wrote:
> "C. E. White" <cewhite3@mindspring.com> wrote in message
> news:3F7CE3E2.B772E342@mindspring.com...
>
>>
>>Lloyd Parker wrote:
>>
>>
>>>So are conservatives -- telling people what kind of --- to have, what
>
> genders
>
>>>can marry, what a woman can do with her body, etc.
>>
>>It is not just conservatives who oppose the redefinition of "marriage."
>>Any reasonable person should oppose this sort of reckless redefinition
>>of a long established legal / social / religious institution. If same
>>--- couples want to form a long term commitment to each other, I think
>>that is fine. If they feel they need a governmental sanction to this
>>commitment, then pass a law that creates a new class of civil union. But
>>trying to call this a "marriage" is an insult to millions of American
>>and serves no useful purpose.
>>
>>Ed
>
>
> Oh, sure it does, Ed, if recognized as "marriage" they then get huge tax
> and benefits advantages, all of which are denied singles.
The "new class of civil union" would cover that just fine.
> "C. E. White" <cewhite3@mindspring.com> wrote in message
> news:3F7CE3E2.B772E342@mindspring.com...
>
>>
>>Lloyd Parker wrote:
>>
>>
>>>So are conservatives -- telling people what kind of --- to have, what
>
> genders
>
>>>can marry, what a woman can do with her body, etc.
>>
>>It is not just conservatives who oppose the redefinition of "marriage."
>>Any reasonable person should oppose this sort of reckless redefinition
>>of a long established legal / social / religious institution. If same
>>--- couples want to form a long term commitment to each other, I think
>>that is fine. If they feel they need a governmental sanction to this
>>commitment, then pass a law that creates a new class of civil union. But
>>trying to call this a "marriage" is an insult to millions of American
>>and serves no useful purpose.
>>
>>Ed
>
>
> Oh, sure it does, Ed, if recognized as "marriage" they then get huge tax
> and benefits advantages, all of which are denied singles.
The "new class of civil union" would cover that just fine.