Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)

"Lloyd Parker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>    [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Brent P) wrote:
> >In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Lloyd Parker wrote:
> >>    [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Brent P) wrote:
> >>>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Lloyd Parker wrote:
> >>>>    [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Brent P) wrote:
> >>>>>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, 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?).