"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
news:bql1so$c29$21@puck.cc.emory.edu...
> In article <WPhzb.2620$rE3.1688@twister.socal.rr.com>,
> "David J. Allen" <dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote:
> >
> >"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
> >news:bqitii$of5$5@puck.cc.emory.edu...
> >> In article <JX5zb.48$rE3.36@twister.socal.rr.com>,
> >> "David J. Allen" <dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> >I think a National Health Care system sounds very scary. If we
want
> >an
> >> >> >abundant supply of medical care in this country you can't take the
> >supply
> >> >> >and demand components out of the system. The minute you do, there
> >won't be
> >> >> >enough care and it will be substandard. There will be a constant
> >struggle
> >> >> >to keep the system from bankrupting the national treasury. I think
it
> >will
> >> >> >just become a giant sized version of an HMO run by the government
with
> >no
> >> >> >competitors.
> >> >>
> >> >> Yeah, it'd be terrible if everybody were covered and we spent less
on
> >health
> >> >> care, as Europe, Canada, and Japan do, wouldn't it? Terrible for
> >insurance
> >> >> companies, drug companies, HMOs, etc, that is.
> >> >>
> >> >> But why not a single-payer, like Canada then? You wouldn't have
> >national
> >> >> health care, just national health insurance.
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> >That's the point. A national HMO.
> >>
> >> No, a national insurance. Like Medicare, which runs with less overhead
> >than
> >> any private insurance company, and which seniors love.
> >>
> >
> >Doctors who accept Medicare patients lose money. Many doctors won't
accept
> >Medicare patients for that reason. Those that do accept them do it
because
> >they feel an obligation. Medicare is also headed for bankruptcy unless
> >drastic action is taken. Reduced coverage, reduced reimbursement to
> >doctors, increased Medicare tax withholding.
> >
> >
> Lots of doctors won't accept certain HMOs either, because of low payments
or
> endless delays. Here in GA, a number recently have dropped Aetna, for
> example.

Great thing... competition. All gone with a government monopoly.

 

"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
news:bql1so$c29$21@puck.cc.emory.edu...
> In article <WPhzb.2620$rE3.1688@twister.socal.rr.com>,
> "David J. Allen" <dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote:
> >
> >"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
> >news:bqitii$of5$5@puck.cc.emory.edu...
> >> In article <JX5zb.48$rE3.36@twister.socal.rr.com>,
> >> "David J. Allen" <dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> >I think a National Health Care system sounds very scary. If we
want
> >an
> >> >> >abundant supply of medical care in this country you can't take the
> >supply
> >> >> >and demand components out of the system. The minute you do, there
> >won't be
> >> >> >enough care and it will be substandard. There will be a constant
> >struggle
> >> >> >to keep the system from bankrupting the national treasury. I think
it
> >will
> >> >> >just become a giant sized version of an HMO run by the government
with
> >no
> >> >> >competitors.
> >> >>
> >> >> Yeah, it'd be terrible if everybody were covered and we spent less
on
> >health
> >> >> care, as Europe, Canada, and Japan do, wouldn't it? Terrible for
> >insurance
> >> >> companies, drug companies, HMOs, etc, that is.
> >> >>
> >> >> But why not a single-payer, like Canada then? You wouldn't have
> >national
> >> >> health care, just national health insurance.
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> >That's the point. A national HMO.
> >>
> >> No, a national insurance. Like Medicare, which runs with less overhead
> >than
> >> any private insurance company, and which seniors love.
> >>
> >
> >Doctors who accept Medicare patients lose money. Many doctors won't
accept
> >Medicare patients for that reason. Those that do accept them do it
because
> >they feel an obligation. Medicare is also headed for bankruptcy unless
> >drastic action is taken. Reduced coverage, reduced reimbursement to
> >doctors, increased Medicare tax withholding.
> >
> >
> Lots of doctors won't accept certain HMOs either, because of low payments
or
> endless delays. Here in GA, a number recently have dropped Aetna, for
> example.

Great thing... competition. All gone with a government monopoly.

 

"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
news:bql1so$c29$21@puck.cc.emory.edu...
> In article <WPhzb.2620$rE3.1688@twister.socal.rr.com>,
> "David J. Allen" <dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote:
> >
> >"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
> >news:bqitii$of5$5@puck.cc.emory.edu...
> >> In article <JX5zb.48$rE3.36@twister.socal.rr.com>,
> >> "David J. Allen" <dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> >I think a National Health Care system sounds very scary. If we
want
> >an
> >> >> >abundant supply of medical care in this country you can't take the
> >supply
> >> >> >and demand components out of the system. The minute you do, there
> >won't be
> >> >> >enough care and it will be substandard. There will be a constant
> >struggle
> >> >> >to keep the system from bankrupting the national treasury. I think
it
> >will
> >> >> >just become a giant sized version of an HMO run by the government
with
> >no
> >> >> >competitors.
> >> >>
> >> >> Yeah, it'd be terrible if everybody were covered and we spent less
on
> >health
> >> >> care, as Europe, Canada, and Japan do, wouldn't it? Terrible for
> >insurance
> >> >> companies, drug companies, HMOs, etc, that is.
> >> >>
> >> >> But why not a single-payer, like Canada then? You wouldn't have
> >national
> >> >> health care, just national health insurance.
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> >That's the point. A national HMO.
> >>
> >> No, a national insurance. Like Medicare, which runs with less overhead
> >than
> >> any private insurance company, and which seniors love.
> >>
> >
> >Doctors who accept Medicare patients lose money. Many doctors won't
accept
> >Medicare patients for that reason. Those that do accept them do it
because
> >they feel an obligation. Medicare is also headed for bankruptcy unless
> >drastic action is taken. Reduced coverage, reduced reimbursement to
> >doctors, increased Medicare tax withholding.
> >
> >
> Lots of doctors won't accept certain HMOs either, because of low payments
or
> endless delays. Here in GA, a number recently have dropped Aetna, for
> example.

Great thing... competition. All gone with a government monopoly.

 

Lloyd Parker wrote:

> But why should government institutionalize discrimination? OK, no religion
> should be required to perform or recognize a marriage not in keeping with its
> creed (doesn't the catholic church not recognize marriages by divorced
> people?), but why should government discriminate?

I am not suggesting that the government institutionalize discrimination. Marriage
is a union between a man and a woman. It is not a same --- union. If there are
particular laws related to the term "marriage" that make "marriages" beneficial
and same --- unions feel they deserve these benefits, then change the law, or
have the law ruled unconstitutional. Don't try to circumvent the process by
redefining the word.

Ed

 

Lloyd Parker wrote:

> But why should government institutionalize discrimination? OK, no religion
> should be required to perform or recognize a marriage not in keeping with its
> creed (doesn't the catholic church not recognize marriages by divorced
> people?), but why should government discriminate?

I am not suggesting that the government institutionalize discrimination. Marriage
is a union between a man and a woman. It is not a same --- union. If there are
particular laws related to the term "marriage" that make "marriages" beneficial
and same --- unions feel they deserve these benefits, then change the law, or
have the law ruled unconstitutional. Don't try to circumvent the process by
redefining the word.

Ed

 

Lloyd Parker wrote:

> But why should government institutionalize discrimination? OK, no religion
> should be required to perform or recognize a marriage not in keeping with its
> creed (doesn't the catholic church not recognize marriages by divorced
> people?), but why should government discriminate?

I am not suggesting that the government institutionalize discrimination. Marriage
is a union between a man and a woman. It is not a same --- union. If there are
particular laws related to the term "marriage" that make "marriages" beneficial
and same --- unions feel they deserve these benefits, then change the law, or
have the law ruled unconstitutional. Don't try to circumvent the process by
redefining the word.

Ed

 

"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
news:bql30g$c29$28@puck.cc.emory.edu...
> In article <uXnzb.211214$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.

The Europeans and Canadians choose to tax themsleves to provide cradle to
grave care for health care. It's a choice they make. Good for them.
There's a price they pay for that. There's far less innovation and change
in Europe than there is in the US. They tend to stick with the status quo.
In the US, the competitive juices among companies are often too much for
European companies. Airbus was subsidized for years to support foreign
sales. Another example is telecommunications. Nokia has struggled with
CDMA technology in the US because of the constant change and forward
movement in technology here. Europe would be happy to stay with GSM as a
universal standard while US companies are pushing the technological
envelope. Is the most efficient? Maybe not, but it's the price we pay for
innovation and new technologies. High energy competition is dollar driven
(oh, how evil.... the greed!). The European model severely dampens that
energy. You can see the desparation to bring in outside money in Europe;
like government subsidies, their selling of weapons systems (France,
Germany) to ANYONE (read Saddam Hussein), willingness to accept despotism in
exchange for lucrative trade deals (do you really think France opposed the
war on "moral" grounds?).

 

"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
news:bql30g$c29$28@puck.cc.emory.edu...
> In article <uXnzb.211214$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.

The Europeans and Canadians choose to tax themsleves to provide cradle to
grave care for health care. It's a choice they make. Good for them.
There's a price they pay for that. There's far less innovation and change
in Europe than there is in the US. They tend to stick with the status quo.
In the US, the competitive juices among companies are often too much for
European companies. Airbus was subsidized for years to support foreign
sales. Another example is telecommunications. Nokia has struggled with
CDMA technology in the US because of the constant change and forward
movement in technology here. Europe would be happy to stay with GSM as a
universal standard while US companies are pushing the technological
envelope. Is the most efficient? Maybe not, but it's the price we pay for
innovation and new technologies. High energy competition is dollar driven
(oh, how evil.... the greed!). The European model severely dampens that
energy. You can see the desparation to bring in outside money in Europe;
like government subsidies, their selling of weapons systems (France,
Germany) to ANYONE (read Saddam Hussein), willingness to accept despotism in
exchange for lucrative trade deals (do you really think France opposed the
war on "moral" grounds?).

 

"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
news:bql30g$c29$28@puck.cc.emory.edu...
> In article <uXnzb.211214$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.

The Europeans and Canadians choose to tax themsleves to provide cradle to
grave care for health care. It's a choice they make. Good for them.
There's a price they pay for that. There's far less innovation and change
in Europe than there is in the US. They tend to stick with the status quo.
In the US, the competitive juices among companies are often too much for
European companies. Airbus was subsidized for years to support foreign
sales. Another example is telecommunications. Nokia has struggled with
CDMA technology in the US because of the constant change and forward
movement in technology here. Europe would be happy to stay with GSM as a
universal standard while US companies are pushing the technological
envelope. Is the most efficient? Maybe not, but it's the price we pay for
innovation and new technologies. High energy competition is dollar driven
(oh, how evil.... the greed!). The European model severely dampens that
energy. You can see the desparation to bring in outside money in Europe;
like government subsidies, their selling of weapons systems (France,
Germany) to ANYONE (read Saddam Hussein), willingness to accept despotism in
exchange for lucrative trade deals (do you really think France opposed the
war on "moral" grounds?).

 

On Wed, 03 Dec 2003 13:00:25 -0500, "C. E. White"
<cewhite3@mindspring.com> wrote:

>
>
>Lloyd Parker wrote:
>
>> But why should government institutionalize discrimination? OK, no religion
>> should be required to perform or recognize a marriage not in keeping with its
>> creed (doesn't the catholic church not recognize marriages by divorced
>> people?), but why should government discriminate?
>
>I am not suggesting that the government institutionalize discrimination. Marriage
>is a union between a man and a woman. It is not a same --- union. If there are
>particular laws related to the term "marriage" that make "marriages" beneficial
>and same --- unions feel they deserve these benefits, then change the law, or
>have the law ruled unconstitutional. Don't try to circumvent the process by
>redefining the word.

This confuses me greatly. If two men or two women want to be joined
as a family in a marriage, how does it detract from your marriage?
--
Brandon Sommerville
remove ".gov" to e-mail

Definition of "Lottery":
Millions of stupid people contributing
to make one stupid person look smart.