Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
#5601
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
In article <bql30g$c29$28@puck.cc.emory.edu>, Lloyd Parker wrote:
> In article <uXnzb.211214$Dw6.768125@attbi_s02>,
> tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
>>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$8@puck.cc.emory.edu>, Lloyd Parker wrote:
>>
>>>>>>> Yeah, it'd be terrible if everybody were covered and we spent less on
> health
>>>>>>> care, as Europe, Canada, and Japan do, wouldn't it? Terrible for
> insurance
>>>>>>> companies, drug companies, HMOs, etc, that is.
>>
>>>>>>How would we spend "less on health care" ? Instead of paying for health
>>>>>>insurance we would pay *AT LEAST* that much in additional taxes.
>>
>>>>> Why is it, then, that every western European nation, plus Canada and
> Japan,
>>>>> spend less per capita on health care than the US yet still cover
> everybody?
>>
>>>>Answer a question with a question. How does your state run health care
>>>>system cost less than the current private one?
>>
>>> Because all the examples we have of state-run health care say it would.
>>> Economy of scale, negotiation for lower prices, preventative care instead
> of
>>> waiting until the person becomes sick -- all these and other factors.
>>
>>So your answer is we would save money through the reduced quality of care.
>>I suggest you gain some experience with how government price controls
>>have a negative impact on care, at least with regards to how it works
>>in the USA.
>>
>>
> Again, I refer you to all the data which shows people in Canada and western
> Europe are healthier and live longer.
I would be healthier and live longer if I had a continous month of vacation
each year.
> In article <uXnzb.211214$Dw6.768125@attbi_s02>,
> tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
>>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$8@puck.cc.emory.edu>, Lloyd Parker wrote:
>>
>>>>>>> Yeah, it'd be terrible if everybody were covered and we spent less on
> health
>>>>>>> care, as Europe, Canada, and Japan do, wouldn't it? Terrible for
> insurance
>>>>>>> companies, drug companies, HMOs, etc, that is.
>>
>>>>>>How would we spend "less on health care" ? Instead of paying for health
>>>>>>insurance we would pay *AT LEAST* that much in additional taxes.
>>
>>>>> Why is it, then, that every western European nation, plus Canada and
> Japan,
>>>>> spend less per capita on health care than the US yet still cover
> everybody?
>>
>>>>Answer a question with a question. How does your state run health care
>>>>system cost less than the current private one?
>>
>>> Because all the examples we have of state-run health care say it would.
>>> Economy of scale, negotiation for lower prices, preventative care instead
> of
>>> waiting until the person becomes sick -- all these and other factors.
>>
>>So your answer is we would save money through the reduced quality of care.
>>I suggest you gain some experience with how government price controls
>>have a negative impact on care, at least with regards to how it works
>>in the USA.
>>
>>
> Again, I refer you to all the data which shows people in Canada and western
> Europe are healthier and live longer.
I would be healthier and live longer if I had a continous month of vacation
each year.
#5602
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
In article <bql30g$c29$28@puck.cc.emory.edu>, Lloyd Parker wrote:
> In article <uXnzb.211214$Dw6.768125@attbi_s02>,
> tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
>>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$8@puck.cc.emory.edu>, Lloyd Parker wrote:
>>
>>>>>>> Yeah, it'd be terrible if everybody were covered and we spent less on
> health
>>>>>>> care, as Europe, Canada, and Japan do, wouldn't it? Terrible for
> insurance
>>>>>>> companies, drug companies, HMOs, etc, that is.
>>
>>>>>>How would we spend "less on health care" ? Instead of paying for health
>>>>>>insurance we would pay *AT LEAST* that much in additional taxes.
>>
>>>>> Why is it, then, that every western European nation, plus Canada and
> Japan,
>>>>> spend less per capita on health care than the US yet still cover
> everybody?
>>
>>>>Answer a question with a question. How does your state run health care
>>>>system cost less than the current private one?
>>
>>> Because all the examples we have of state-run health care say it would.
>>> Economy of scale, negotiation for lower prices, preventative care instead
> of
>>> waiting until the person becomes sick -- all these and other factors.
>>
>>So your answer is we would save money through the reduced quality of care.
>>I suggest you gain some experience with how government price controls
>>have a negative impact on care, at least with regards to how it works
>>in the USA.
>>
>>
> Again, I refer you to all the data which shows people in Canada and western
> Europe are healthier and live longer.
I would be healthier and live longer if I had a continous month of vacation
each year.
> In article <uXnzb.211214$Dw6.768125@attbi_s02>,
> tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
>>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$8@puck.cc.emory.edu>, Lloyd Parker wrote:
>>
>>>>>>> Yeah, it'd be terrible if everybody were covered and we spent less on
> health
>>>>>>> care, as Europe, Canada, and Japan do, wouldn't it? Terrible for
> insurance
>>>>>>> companies, drug companies, HMOs, etc, that is.
>>
>>>>>>How would we spend "less on health care" ? Instead of paying for health
>>>>>>insurance we would pay *AT LEAST* that much in additional taxes.
>>
>>>>> Why is it, then, that every western European nation, plus Canada and
> Japan,
>>>>> spend less per capita on health care than the US yet still cover
> everybody?
>>
>>>>Answer a question with a question. How does your state run health care
>>>>system cost less than the current private one?
>>
>>> Because all the examples we have of state-run health care say it would.
>>> Economy of scale, negotiation for lower prices, preventative care instead
> of
>>> waiting until the person becomes sick -- all these and other factors.
>>
>>So your answer is we would save money through the reduced quality of care.
>>I suggest you gain some experience with how government price controls
>>have a negative impact on care, at least with regards to how it works
>>in the USA.
>>
>>
> Again, I refer you to all the data which shows people in Canada and western
> Europe are healthier and live longer.
I would be healthier and live longer if I had a continous month of vacation
each year.
#5603
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety canbe misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
news:bql123$c29$11@puck.cc.emory.edu...
> In article <3FCD2603.3BC69F50@kinez.net>,
> Bill Putney <bputney@kinez.net> wrote:
> >
> >
> >You're free to pay for their healthcare any time you want. But what
> >idiot believes that they have the right to reach into my pocket and take
> >what is mine (it's called stealing). So - really - who is preventing
> >you and anyone who feels that way from paying for the treatment of these
> >people? You have that right, as do I - but by freedom of will - not by
> >confiscation.
> >
>
> It's called living in a society. Society has the right to compel you to
pay
> taxes, and it's the height of idiocy to call it stealing or theft. If you
> don't want to live in a society, you can leave. Nobody's keeping you
here.
>
That's the problem with liberals. They don't view the taxing and spending
of people's income as a sacred trust done with great reluctance and limited
to necessary functions. The sacred trust for liberals is with the
recipients of tax dollars, not the givers. So, the more the merrier.
> >Bill Putney
> >(to reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
> >address with "x")
> >
> >
> >-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
> >http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
> >-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
#5604
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety canbe misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
news:bql123$c29$11@puck.cc.emory.edu...
> In article <3FCD2603.3BC69F50@kinez.net>,
> Bill Putney <bputney@kinez.net> wrote:
> >
> >
> >You're free to pay for their healthcare any time you want. But what
> >idiot believes that they have the right to reach into my pocket and take
> >what is mine (it's called stealing). So - really - who is preventing
> >you and anyone who feels that way from paying for the treatment of these
> >people? You have that right, as do I - but by freedom of will - not by
> >confiscation.
> >
>
> It's called living in a society. Society has the right to compel you to
pay
> taxes, and it's the height of idiocy to call it stealing or theft. If you
> don't want to live in a society, you can leave. Nobody's keeping you
here.
>
That's the problem with liberals. They don't view the taxing and spending
of people's income as a sacred trust done with great reluctance and limited
to necessary functions. The sacred trust for liberals is with the
recipients of tax dollars, not the givers. So, the more the merrier.
> >Bill Putney
> >(to reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
> >address with "x")
> >
> >
> >-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
> >http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
> >-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
#5605
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety canbe misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
news:bql123$c29$11@puck.cc.emory.edu...
> In article <3FCD2603.3BC69F50@kinez.net>,
> Bill Putney <bputney@kinez.net> wrote:
> >
> >
> >You're free to pay for their healthcare any time you want. But what
> >idiot believes that they have the right to reach into my pocket and take
> >what is mine (it's called stealing). So - really - who is preventing
> >you and anyone who feels that way from paying for the treatment of these
> >people? You have that right, as do I - but by freedom of will - not by
> >confiscation.
> >
>
> It's called living in a society. Society has the right to compel you to
pay
> taxes, and it's the height of idiocy to call it stealing or theft. If you
> don't want to live in a society, you can leave. Nobody's keeping you
here.
>
That's the problem with liberals. They don't view the taxing and spending
of people's income as a sacred trust done with great reluctance and limited
to necessary functions. The sacred trust for liberals is with the
recipients of tax dollars, not the givers. So, the more the merrier.
> >Bill Putney
> >(to reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
> >address with "x")
> >
> >
> >-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
> >http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
> >-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
#5606
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
In article <bql1me$c29$18@puck.cc.emory.edu>, Lloyd Parker wrote:
> In article <Nabzb.285099$275.1004261@attbi_s53>,
> tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
>>In article <bqitam$of5$3@puck.cc.emory.edu>, Lloyd Parker wrote:
>>> Need dialysis? No hospital is required to do that for free, for example.
>>
>>Government health care programs already cover dialysis.
> Most people aren't in such a program.
Most people aren't, but most people who are on dialysis will end up on one.
>> In fact the price
>>(LOW) the government pays is a if not the driving factor in care in this
>>area. The government payment scheme for 3-times-a-week dialysis is
>>a major obstacle to improving the quality of care, the quality of
>>people's lives, and their surviviability.
>>
>>I am really glad you made a point of dialysis parker, because it is one
>>treatment that is required to keep people with renal failure alive but one
>>where government price controls dominate what people get with regards
>>to care. It is a great example of the arrogant way government does things
>>that has a negative effect on people. Want better care than 3 times a
>>week? Government says you can't have it, they'll only pay for that. If
>>you want something better, you better pay for it yourself or hope it can
>>work within the government 3-times-a-week cost model. You've stuck your
>>foot in your mouth once again Parker.
No response from parker, just one misleading sentance.
> In article <Nabzb.285099$275.1004261@attbi_s53>,
> tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
>>In article <bqitam$of5$3@puck.cc.emory.edu>, Lloyd Parker wrote:
>>> Need dialysis? No hospital is required to do that for free, for example.
>>
>>Government health care programs already cover dialysis.
> Most people aren't in such a program.
Most people aren't, but most people who are on dialysis will end up on one.
>> In fact the price
>>(LOW) the government pays is a if not the driving factor in care in this
>>area. The government payment scheme for 3-times-a-week dialysis is
>>a major obstacle to improving the quality of care, the quality of
>>people's lives, and their surviviability.
>>
>>I am really glad you made a point of dialysis parker, because it is one
>>treatment that is required to keep people with renal failure alive but one
>>where government price controls dominate what people get with regards
>>to care. It is a great example of the arrogant way government does things
>>that has a negative effect on people. Want better care than 3 times a
>>week? Government says you can't have it, they'll only pay for that. If
>>you want something better, you better pay for it yourself or hope it can
>>work within the government 3-times-a-week cost model. You've stuck your
>>foot in your mouth once again Parker.
No response from parker, just one misleading sentance.
#5607
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
In article <bql1me$c29$18@puck.cc.emory.edu>, Lloyd Parker wrote:
> In article <Nabzb.285099$275.1004261@attbi_s53>,
> tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
>>In article <bqitam$of5$3@puck.cc.emory.edu>, Lloyd Parker wrote:
>>> Need dialysis? No hospital is required to do that for free, for example.
>>
>>Government health care programs already cover dialysis.
> Most people aren't in such a program.
Most people aren't, but most people who are on dialysis will end up on one.
>> In fact the price
>>(LOW) the government pays is a if not the driving factor in care in this
>>area. The government payment scheme for 3-times-a-week dialysis is
>>a major obstacle to improving the quality of care, the quality of
>>people's lives, and their surviviability.
>>
>>I am really glad you made a point of dialysis parker, because it is one
>>treatment that is required to keep people with renal failure alive but one
>>where government price controls dominate what people get with regards
>>to care. It is a great example of the arrogant way government does things
>>that has a negative effect on people. Want better care than 3 times a
>>week? Government says you can't have it, they'll only pay for that. If
>>you want something better, you better pay for it yourself or hope it can
>>work within the government 3-times-a-week cost model. You've stuck your
>>foot in your mouth once again Parker.
No response from parker, just one misleading sentance.
> In article <Nabzb.285099$275.1004261@attbi_s53>,
> tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
>>In article <bqitam$of5$3@puck.cc.emory.edu>, Lloyd Parker wrote:
>>> Need dialysis? No hospital is required to do that for free, for example.
>>
>>Government health care programs already cover dialysis.
> Most people aren't in such a program.
Most people aren't, but most people who are on dialysis will end up on one.
>> In fact the price
>>(LOW) the government pays is a if not the driving factor in care in this
>>area. The government payment scheme for 3-times-a-week dialysis is
>>a major obstacle to improving the quality of care, the quality of
>>people's lives, and their surviviability.
>>
>>I am really glad you made a point of dialysis parker, because it is one
>>treatment that is required to keep people with renal failure alive but one
>>where government price controls dominate what people get with regards
>>to care. It is a great example of the arrogant way government does things
>>that has a negative effect on people. Want better care than 3 times a
>>week? Government says you can't have it, they'll only pay for that. If
>>you want something better, you better pay for it yourself or hope it can
>>work within the government 3-times-a-week cost model. You've stuck your
>>foot in your mouth once again Parker.
No response from parker, just one misleading sentance.
#5608
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
In article <bql1me$c29$18@puck.cc.emory.edu>, Lloyd Parker wrote:
> In article <Nabzb.285099$275.1004261@attbi_s53>,
> tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
>>In article <bqitam$of5$3@puck.cc.emory.edu>, Lloyd Parker wrote:
>>> Need dialysis? No hospital is required to do that for free, for example.
>>
>>Government health care programs already cover dialysis.
> Most people aren't in such a program.
Most people aren't, but most people who are on dialysis will end up on one.
>> In fact the price
>>(LOW) the government pays is a if not the driving factor in care in this
>>area. The government payment scheme for 3-times-a-week dialysis is
>>a major obstacle to improving the quality of care, the quality of
>>people's lives, and their surviviability.
>>
>>I am really glad you made a point of dialysis parker, because it is one
>>treatment that is required to keep people with renal failure alive but one
>>where government price controls dominate what people get with regards
>>to care. It is a great example of the arrogant way government does things
>>that has a negative effect on people. Want better care than 3 times a
>>week? Government says you can't have it, they'll only pay for that. If
>>you want something better, you better pay for it yourself or hope it can
>>work within the government 3-times-a-week cost model. You've stuck your
>>foot in your mouth once again Parker.
No response from parker, just one misleading sentance.
> In article <Nabzb.285099$275.1004261@attbi_s53>,
> tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
>>In article <bqitam$of5$3@puck.cc.emory.edu>, Lloyd Parker wrote:
>>> Need dialysis? No hospital is required to do that for free, for example.
>>
>>Government health care programs already cover dialysis.
> Most people aren't in such a program.
Most people aren't, but most people who are on dialysis will end up on one.
>> In fact the price
>>(LOW) the government pays is a if not the driving factor in care in this
>>area. The government payment scheme for 3-times-a-week dialysis is
>>a major obstacle to improving the quality of care, the quality of
>>people's lives, and their surviviability.
>>
>>I am really glad you made a point of dialysis parker, because it is one
>>treatment that is required to keep people with renal failure alive but one
>>where government price controls dominate what people get with regards
>>to care. It is a great example of the arrogant way government does things
>>that has a negative effect on people. Want better care than 3 times a
>>week? Government says you can't have it, they'll only pay for that. If
>>you want something better, you better pay for it yourself or hope it can
>>work within the government 3-times-a-week cost model. You've stuck your
>>foot in your mouth once again Parker.
No response from parker, just one misleading sentance.
#5609
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
On Wed, 03 Dec 03 10:54:53 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
wrote:
>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?
So now a simple google search is "right-wing propaganda"? Every one
of 2,280,000 pages is right wing? No wonder people have such a low
opinion of you.
wrote:
>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?
So now a simple google search is "right-wing propaganda"? Every one
of 2,280,000 pages is right wing? No wonder people have such a low
opinion of you.
#5610
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
On Wed, 03 Dec 03 10:54:53 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
wrote:
>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?
So now a simple google search is "right-wing propaganda"? Every one
of 2,280,000 pages is right wing? No wonder people have such a low
opinion of you.
wrote:
>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?
So now a simple google search is "right-wing propaganda"? Every one
of 2,280,000 pages is right wing? No wonder people have such a low
opinion of you.