"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
news:bql0t8$c29$8@puck.cc.emory.edu...
> In article <vsq6jtru8cnd96@corp.supernews.com>,
> "The Ancient One" <onlytheone@thetopknows.com> wrote:
> >
> >"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
> >news:bqitfk$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:

Oh great, more of your left wing propaganda.
It's true Lloyd, learn to read, watch the news, open your mind. Consumer
Reports, give me a break, what a sorry source of left wing lies.
>
>
http://www-2.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs.cmu.e...cs/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.
> >
> >

 

"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
news:bql0t8$c29$8@puck.cc.emory.edu...
> In article <vsq6jtru8cnd96@corp.supernews.com>,
> "The Ancient One" <onlytheone@thetopknows.com> wrote:
> >
> >"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
> >news:bqitfk$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:

Oh great, more of your left wing propaganda.
It's true Lloyd, learn to read, watch the news, open your mind. Consumer
Reports, give me a break, what a sorry source of left wing lies.
>
>
http://www-2.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs.cmu.e...cs/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.
> >
> >

 

"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
news:bql0t8$c29$8@puck.cc.emory.edu...
> In article <vsq6jtru8cnd96@corp.supernews.com>,
> "The Ancient One" <onlytheone@thetopknows.com> wrote:
> >
> >"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
> >news:bqitfk$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:

Oh great, more of your left wing propaganda.
It's true Lloyd, learn to read, watch the news, open your mind. Consumer
Reports, give me a break, what a sorry source of left wing lies.
>
>
http://www-2.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs.cmu.e...cs/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.
> >
> >

 

In article <TpOdneyta5tZ8VOiRTvUqA@texas.net>, Steve wrote:
> 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.

Parker has never turned a wrench and rents his cars these days.

That said, there is one condition where you replace it with an identical
part. If your car is one of those show car as-it-left-the-factory perfect
trailer queens ;)

 

In article <TpOdneyta5tZ8VOiRTvUqA@texas.net>, Steve wrote:
> 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.

Parker has never turned a wrench and rents his cars these days.

That said, there is one condition where you replace it with an identical
part. If your car is one of those show car as-it-left-the-factory perfect
trailer queens ;)

 

In article <TpOdneyta5tZ8VOiRTvUqA@texas.net>, Steve wrote:
> 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.

Parker has never turned a wrench and rents his cars these days.

That said, there is one condition where you replace it with an identical
part. If your car is one of those show car as-it-left-the-factory perfect
trailer queens ;)

 

"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
news:bql14l$c29$13@puck.cc.emory.edu...
> In article <3FCD297E.ACDFBAB3@kinez.net>,
> Bill Putney <bputney@kinez.net> wrote:
> >
> >
> >Lloyd Parker wrote:
> >>
> >> > 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.
> >
> >True. I personally witnessed this while actively spending over a year
> >on an internet forum strictly for parents of a certain childhood form of
> >cancer. There were people from all over the world on there, but
> >particularly the U.S., Canada, and Britain. The gross malpractice that
> >we witnessed on children in Canada due to its metered out healthcare was
> >atrocious. The U.S. was the mecca of successful treatment.
>
> If you're rich.

With your system he would be dead, with ours he has a good chance of
survival. Why do you seek to stifle advancement Lloyd?

>
> >
> >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! =-----

 

"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
news:bql14l$c29$13@puck.cc.emory.edu...
> In article <3FCD297E.ACDFBAB3@kinez.net>,
> Bill Putney <bputney@kinez.net> wrote:
> >
> >
> >Lloyd Parker wrote:
> >>
> >> > 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.
> >
> >True. I personally witnessed this while actively spending over a year
> >on an internet forum strictly for parents of a certain childhood form of
> >cancer. There were people from all over the world on there, but
> >particularly the U.S., Canada, and Britain. The gross malpractice that
> >we witnessed on children in Canada due to its metered out healthcare was
> >atrocious. The U.S. was the mecca of successful treatment.
>
> If you're rich.

With your system he would be dead, with ours he has a good chance of
survival. Why do you seek to stifle advancement Lloyd?

>
> >
> >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! =-----

 

"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
news:bql14l$c29$13@puck.cc.emory.edu...
> In article <3FCD297E.ACDFBAB3@kinez.net>,
> Bill Putney <bputney@kinez.net> wrote:
> >
> >
> >Lloyd Parker wrote:
> >>
> >> > 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.
> >
> >True. I personally witnessed this while actively spending over a year
> >on an internet forum strictly for parents of a certain childhood form of
> >cancer. There were people from all over the world on there, but
> >particularly the U.S., Canada, and Britain. The gross malpractice that
> >we witnessed on children in Canada due to its metered out healthcare was
> >atrocious. The U.S. was the mecca of successful treatment.
>
> If you're rich.

With your system he would be dead, with ours he has a good chance of
survival. Why do you seek to stifle advancement Lloyd?

>
> >
> >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! =-----

 

"Daniel J. Stern" wrote:

> > Why are trees called tress, dogs called dogs, etc. If I call a cat a
> > dog, does that make it a dog?
>
> We're not considering cats, dogs or trees. We're considering two people
> who wish to affirm their relationship to each other, thereby taking on the
> social and financial responsibilities and attaining the social and
> financial privileges accorded by society to two people in such a
> relationship.

I have no problem with two people who love each other affirming their
relationship. I also have no problem with laws being changed to accord
these people the same rights and benefits that are accorded to people
married under the traditional definition. I just don't agree that it is
correct to call this a marriage - at least in the traditional sense.
English words frequently have multiple meaning and certainly the word
marriage in the general sense can be used to describe a union between
all sorts of things (as in "He was married to his life style.").
However, when we are discussing the legal definition of a marriage, I
don't think the people who wrote the laws regarding marriage intended it
to cover same --- unions, and I don't like the idea that we can just
arbitrarily expand the legal meaning because some people like the idea.

> You have yet to explain why the --- of the two partners is at all relevant
> other than to make circular parrot noises ("Rawk! Man and woman! Reehoo!
> Redefining! Rawk! Not a marriage").

If I can't count on the consistent meaning of words in a legal sense,
how can I trust the laws the words describe?


> You seem very convinced of your rightness on this matter. Surely, then,
> you can articulate the basis for your belief in a persuasive and logical
> manner, rather than simply repeating a dogmatic statement...?

What do you mean by "repeating a dogmatic statement?" I just wants legal
terms to have a consistent understandable meaning. I don't like the idea
of laws being molded into a new shape by adjusting the meaning of words.

> > The laws related to the institution of marriage were set in place with
> > the understanding that a marriage was a union between a man and a woman.
>
> Fifty years ago, your type was saying "The laws related to the institution
> of marriage were set in place with the understanding that a marriage was a
> union between members of the same race."

I think you missed the mark here. At the time and places these sort of
believes were held, separate laws were passed prohibiting such unions.
The definition of "marriage" was not adjusted to exclude such unions.

> > Trying to extend those laws to cover same --- unions is not the right
> > way to fix a perceived injustice.
>
> While I'd be interested to learn what you think *is* the right way, I
> hardly think you have much basis to be making pronouncements on the
> matter. You're not on the receiving end of the injustice.

The "right way" is to pass laws recognizing civil unions and endowing
them with the rights and benefits that lawmakers agree on. Traditional
man/woman marriage could be a sub-set. I suppose you could pass laws
explicitly redefining the legal meaning of the word "marriage" to
include same --- union, but this seems needlessly provocative. Of course
maybe that is the whole objective of those who want to change the legal
definition of marriage to include same --- unions.

I really don't know what else I can say on the subject. I just prefer
that words have a consistent legal interpretation. I have no desire to
discriminate again people of the same --- who love each other, I just
don't agree that we can just decide to redefine the legal meaning of
marriage to include same --- unions because it is the expedient way to
implement a desirable policy change.

Ed