Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers

Spoken like a good little creationist.

And the folks standing behind you and your ilk are Fascists and Nazis. Want
to call names? OK.

 

As opposed to here, where if you don't have insurance, or aren't rich, you
either go bankrupt or do without any care?

 

That's a lie. That was never, ever part of any proposal. The plan was
similar to Canada's -- a single payer, with anyone being able to purchase
additional private insurance. What was banned was selling insurance that
covered the SAME thing the government plan would already cover.

 

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.

 

Wrong. They started treating major modifications as new sources, which was
exactly what the law allowed (and required). If during 10 years of routine
maintenance you replace each part, you've got a new source, yet under your and
Bush's plan, it'd never trigger the latest pollution controls because you
replaced it one piece at a time, as part of each year's maintenance.

Treating it this way

requirements of new plants.

But if the plants get modified instead of just "serviced and cleaned", that's
precisely what the law intended. That's why the EPA sued a number of utility
companies, why a number of them settled, and why the suits continued until
Bush decided to "reinterpet" the law just this year.


?This

on this, and

The WSJ never met an environmental reg it liked, because it never met a
corporate profit it didn't want increased.

memos.

It was not.

Next you'll be telling us how good Bush is for the environment! LOL!

 

Other than the fact that transmission losses are practically negligible
in a modern power grid (note that not all of the American power grid
qualifies as "modern," particularly in the east and northeast) I
basically agree. Technology is the driver, and a blanket "government
mandate" for a given type of generation is useless.

Then remove the controls and further reduce the impact of government.
Technology has ALREADY made things like many small and widely scattered
gas turbine plants (fueled by a wide variety of fuels- natural gas, oil,
biomass, etc.) more cost-appealing than traditional centrally-located
large-scale coal fired steam plants. Wind is hugely economically
appealing now because of the low cost of the equipment and the
relatively low cost of the land needed in the desert areas that
typically have sufficient wind available.

Even WITH the political crap, physics and engineering still makes the
final decision because it defines what really is possible. Pretending
that politics are relevant at all is tilting at windmills (pun intended).

 

No, if it's made in taiwan, it's made in taiwan. Just agreeing that
the quality of the work is better in taiwan so usually the tooling is
done there rather in mainland china.

 

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?

 

No, you reject facts that don't fit your dogma. That's creationism.

So are conservatives -- telling people what kind of sex to have, what genders
can marry, what a woman can do with her body, etc.

 

Mr. Short-term Memory,

 

Only in an emergency is a hospital required to treat anybody, and as soon as
they're "stable" they can be turned out. Need dialysis? No hospital is
required to do that for free, for example.

 

So now you live in a country where health care is ridiculously expensive. Most
of the money goes to insurance companies. Nurses in the emergency room spend
more time filling out paperwork than looking after patients. Doctors live in
fear of making an honest mistake because the sharks are circulating just out of
sight ready to pounce. If you are poor the health care is still "free." If you
are rich or have really good insurance, then the system is great. However if you
are somewhere in between, chances are your insurance company will try to screw
you, while the hospital tries to bleed your dry (to pay for the administrators,
paper pushers, and to cover the cost of the "free" health care for the poor).
The fact is, we do have National Health Care in the US. The sad part is, we have
just about the worst possible system you can imagine. Personally I see only two
ways out - 1) A true National Health Care system with restrictions on "private"
practices, 2) Outlaw all health insurance and shoot anyone who even suggests
that companies provide health insurance. Everyone pays their own bills. If you
can't afford the treatment, you can apply for welfare (which would be generously
granted based on need).

Ed

 

Huh? They're all run by insurance companies, and they sure are for profit.
In most states, even Blue Cross is now for profit.

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.

Most are -- most new drugs come out of government-funded university research.

And what do you think we spend now on health care?

Totally false.

Why are Canadian retirees moving back to Canada? Why are American seniors
going their for their medicine?

 

No, a national insurance. Like Medicare, which runs with less overhead than
any private insurance company, and which seniors love.

Actually, here the data (Medicare) shows it is.

Most are done that way now -- government-funded university research.

And yet they cover everybody and most of them have longer life spans and less
infant mortality than the US. By any measure, those countries are healthier.

 

Replacing may not be, but changing one part for a DIFFERENT one is, and should
be. Otherwise, you'd have the scenario I mentioned.

Not true. I refer you to the suits the EPA filed.

I suggest you cite some source other than one rabidly pro-business to have any
credibility.

You're confusing ADRs with actual shares of stock.

 

Alcoholic fermentation doesn't count. Because I say so, that's why.
(Sorry, best reply I could do).

 

Well, you've been reduced to just one line of name calling.

 

You do realize that a government system like that means you'll have to be
totally broke before having a chance of getting dollar one.

Insurance could be returned to it's primary role, coverage for the
catastrophic (with regards to cost anyway) only.

 

Unfortunately you are probably right. It doesn't have to be that way. Instead of a
strict need basis, I'd be willing to live with a system that kicks in after your
medical bill are greater than some percentage of your taxable income.

I could live with that. How about implementing it before I get sick and need to go to
the Hospital.

Ed

 

Well, here are the estimated magnitudes of the components in the IPCC
model, with confidence limits <pws.prserv.net/gzuckier/warming.jpg>.
Compare the magnitude of the solar component, though large, with the
magnitude of the CO2 component, even with the max end of the solar
confidence limit and the min end of the CO2 confidence limit. The
thing being, that the reasons for the IPCC adopting these estimates
are given in the report along with references to the published
studies, etc. A far cry from just saying they 'discount' solar
warming. So do you have any such evidence for your more solar
position? (This wan't meant to be as hostile a challenge as it sounds
on reading it, just a conversational inquiry tone).