Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers

Many HMOs are not even for profit. And let's attack drug companies and put them
out of business. After all we can all just invent our own miracle drugs, 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.

Huh? Even HillaryClintonCare was forecast to cost in double digit TRILLIONS of
dollars. 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. Trouble is
where would the US people go that needed urgent care with the Canada system here?

 

That's the point. A national HMO. You don't really think the government
would be better at controlling costs that an HMO do you? Oh, and I suppose
you think the government would do a better job of devoloping drugs that
pharmaceuticals? IF those countries you mention actually do spend less (per
capita) on health care than in the US, it's because those governments are
"controlling" costs, i.e., limiting the supply.

 

MAJOR modifications. Not minor improvements which would INCREASE efficiency, such
as a new version of wear items such as turbine blades.

No. The law clearly states that merely replacing parts is NOT new source. Try
becoming familiar with what you talk about.

Actually all Bush did was interpret the law exactly as it was WRITTEN in the
statue, and had been enforced pre Browner and friends.

What on earth are you babbling about? You can't make your argument with actual
facts, so you attack/smear the messenger. Try actually reading the WSJ for once
in your life and you would know that you are wrong as when you said that Daimler
Chrysler was the only foreign company listed on the New York Stock Exchange, as if
Sony of Japan (NYSE:SNE) or Deutsch Bank AG (NYSE: DB) and others didn't even
exist!

Wrong, the Wall Street Journal printed some of these memos not too long ago. And
those were the ones that did not get quietly destroyed by Browner on the last full
day of the Clinton adminstration. ABC News reported on April 30 2001 that Clinton
EPA Administrator Browner had ordered her records and hard drives destroyed,
against US District Court Judge Royce Lamberth's order. I guess the Clinton
Administration is good in your eyes for Enron style shredding. The philosophy of
the Clinton EPA was to do grandstanding rulemaking, without required legislation
or even sound policies. Let me guess, now you're going to start saying how ABC
News is really just a shill. too. Ha!

A lot better than his predecessor, who created perverse incentives for plants NOT
to get cleaner, and HALTED dead brush cleanup in forests so that they could become
tinderboxes for massive fires. Bush is giving us low sulfur diesel fuel, the low
arsenic water standard which Clinton denied drinkers in 1996, and Bush's EPA is
forcing General Electric to clean up PCBs for the entire Hudson River. Thanks for
all those fires, Mr. Clinton. Thanks for conveniently destroying the government
records on the way out too. Glad you were so proud of your record that you needed
to erase it.

I'll repost that story that was posted before, because you conveniently forgot to
comment on it!

"In one famous case, DTE Energy Corp., parent of Detroit Edison Co., tried to
replace older, less efficient propeller blades in several steam turbines at its
biggest coal-fired plant. The new blades were 15% more efficient than the old,
meaning they could generate 15% more power using the same amount of energy--more
power, less pollution. But the Clinton EPA threatened to invoke New Source Review
anyway, so the plan was scrapped.

Not that Detroit Edison and others are avoiding heavy pollution-fighting
expenses. At the very same plant, Detroit Edison is spending $650 million to meet
new nitrogen oxide standards--an expense that won't generate a single new kilowatt
of electricity.

Bureaucrats, of course, interpret such a rational response to perverse rules as a
sign of corporate greed. So when the Clinton administration found that at least
80% of the nation's utilities were violating its New Source Review guidelines, it
didn't bother to ask whether something might be wrong with its policies. It simply
filed an avalanche of lawsuits demanding huge fines.

Yet EPA data clearly show that emissions of nitrogen oxide and sulfur dioxide, the
two main industrial pollutants, have declined substantially despite a tripling of
coal usage. Future Clean Air targets will reduce emissions a further 50%." -WSJ
11/26/02

 

I guess there are charts that differ on this. Some show Canada far ahead of the
US and some slightly behind. Also charts that quote "Primary Energy Consumption
per GDP" usually show Canada well ahead of the US. I guess someone is going to
have to explain the difference between "Primary Energy" and just plan "Energy."

http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/international/iealf/tablee1c.xls
http://www.maui.net/~jstark/nrgfacts.html
http://www.unitednorthamerica.org/simdiff.htm

Here is an interesting reference for you -

http://www.eccj.or.jp/result/eng/13.html

Look down to the chart that shows World CO2 Emission per GDP and tell me if you
think moving production to China is a good thing.

Ed

 

Lloyd Parker wrote:

Thats an incorrect interpretation. If I have a 1973 Plymouth (which I
do) and I replace many components in the course of its 450,000 mile
lifespan (which I have) it is STILL a 1973 Plymouth. It may have some
improvements (modern tires, high-tech brake pads, modern shocks,
aftermarket fuel injection) but it still costs me more to operate daily
than a 2003 Intrepid would, and is still subject to 1973 emissions
standards not 2003 standards. But my maintenance and improvements mean
that it is cleaner and costs less to run than if I had a time machine
and brought an UN-improved 1973 Plymouth to 2003 instead.

By treating routine maintenance as a "new source", the plant owner faces
a double-whammy of 1) the higher cost of operating what is STILL
actually an old-design plant and 2) gummint penalties. And on top of
that, the Sierra Club and other luddite cronies are standing there just
WAITING to protest and shut the whole operation down completely if the
owner were to apply for a brand new plant to replace the old one. That
does NOTHING to encourage building of new plants, but instead
DIScourages routine maintenance that would keep the old plant running as
cleanly as possible.

 

EXACTLY. Clinton policy = NO MODIFICATIONS!! Not even improvements to an
old plant that would be better than doing nothing.

Some companies *did* go to far and try to slip an entirely new plant in
an old shell and call it "maintenance" to avoid installing emissions
gear (Alcoa Sandow plant, for example) and they got caught and called on
the carpet for it... Oh but wait, that happened during the Bush
administration, interestingly enough. Sorta like Enron's crimes all took
place during the Clinton years, but Lloyd keeps telling us that they
were Bush cronies because they were *caught* during the Bush years.

 

Answer a question with a question. How does your state run health care
system cost less than the current private one?

 

Explain then Lloyd why bus loads of Canadians with life threating health
problems are forced to come to the USA for treatment at their own expense.
Sure they can get free care in Canada, IF they can wait 6 months to a year
for treatment.

 

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?

 

Totally true, reported many times in the news. Stop lying Parker, it doesn't
work, we are all smarter than you, even my dog.

Big difference between buying medicine and receiving medical treatment, but
you knew that, you just enjoy lying.

 

Not so.
Hospitals must 'stabilize' emergency cases, but otherwise, they may
turn away those seeking aid.

 

This is priceless.
--
Brandon Sommerville
remove ".gov" to e-mail

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

 

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.

 

Wow, Lloyd, you really are in an ivory tower, aren't you?
Do that Google search I recommended, and learn.

 

No lie.
It was called "Managed Competition".
Look it up, and learn.

 

There aren't any names bad enough to call you Lloyd, you are beyond totally,
hopelessly braindead, the last time you had an intelligent thought was when
you decided to further your education, although your Daddy probably made
that decision for you, and did your work for you so you could pass. Do you
appoint one of your students to teach your classes for you, so your
stupidity won't be revealed?

 

Surprise surprise Lloyd, that is exactly what you do, reject any facts that
aren't pre-approved for you by your Liberal buddies.
That's stupidity, which describes you to a "T".

You are a sick excuse for a human lloyd, why don't you go visit Nate?

 

Lloyd, you incredible imbicile, your reading comprehension still
sucks.
Get a clue.
Look up 'sarcasm'.

 

Indeed. Especially since Lloyd is defining himself as a creationist. He
rejects facts that don't fit his dogma (see the Suzuki/CR thread),
therefore he's a creationist!

As you said, priceless.

 

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.

Bill Putney
(to reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
address with "x")