"Brent P" <tetraethyllead@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:Nabzb.285099$275.1004261@attbi_s53...
> In article <bqitam$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. 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.

Easy for him, he has a small brain but a big mouth.

>
>
>
>
>

 

Lloyd Parker wrote:


>>
>>EXACTLY. Clinton policy = NO MODIFICATIONS!! Not even improvements to an
>>old plant that would be better than doing nothing.
>
>
> Because the Clean Air Act only exempts _maintenance_ not _modifications_.


NORMAL maintenance practice always includes minimal upgrades. You never
replace a worn part with an identical part, if a better part is
available (and it always is). Classifying such maintenance as a
"modification" is asinine.

 

Lloyd Parker wrote:


>>
>>EXACTLY. Clinton policy = NO MODIFICATIONS!! Not even improvements to an
>>old plant that would be better than doing nothing.
>
>
> Because the Clean Air Act only exempts _maintenance_ not _modifications_.


NORMAL maintenance practice always includes minimal upgrades. You never
replace a worn part with an identical part, if a better part is
available (and it always is). Classifying such maintenance as a
"modification" is asinine.

 

Lloyd Parker wrote:


>>
>>EXACTLY. Clinton policy = NO MODIFICATIONS!! Not even improvements to an
>>old plant that would be better than doing nothing.
>
>
> Because the Clean Air Act only exempts _maintenance_ not _modifications_.


NORMAL maintenance practice always includes minimal upgrades. You never
replace a worn part with an identical part, if a better part is
available (and it always is). Classifying such maintenance as a
"modification" is asinine.

 

"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
news:bql0sd$c29$7@puck.cc.emory.edu...
> In article <vsq6brasmia4ca@corp.supernews.com>,
> "The Ancient One" <onlytheone@thetopknows.com> wrote:
> >
> >"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
> >news:bqit3e$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.

All you have to do is check out the facts Lloyd, but you won't, because that
requires thought, something you are incapable of.

>
> >
> >

 

"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
news:bql0sd$c29$7@puck.cc.emory.edu...
> In article <vsq6brasmia4ca@corp.supernews.com>,
> "The Ancient One" <onlytheone@thetopknows.com> wrote:
> >
> >"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
> >news:bqit3e$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.

All you have to do is check out the facts Lloyd, but you won't, because that
requires thought, something you are incapable of.

>
> >
> >

 

"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
news:bql0sd$c29$7@puck.cc.emory.edu...
> In article <vsq6brasmia4ca@corp.supernews.com>,
> "The Ancient One" <onlytheone@thetopknows.com> wrote:
> >
> >"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
> >news:bqit3e$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.

All you have to do is check out the facts Lloyd, but you won't, because that
requires thought, something you are incapable of.

>
> >
> >

 

Lloyd Parker wrote:

>
>
> 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.
>

Or "society" can decide dismantle or reduce taxation. You just don't
want to see that happen.

 

Lloyd Parker wrote:

>
>
> 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.
>

Or "society" can decide dismantle or reduce taxation. You just don't
want to see that happen.

 

Lloyd Parker wrote:

>
>
> 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.
>

Or "society" can decide dismantle or reduce taxation. You just don't
want to see that happen.