[MrQ1701]

Originally Posted by TGElder

You have never been to a DMV office. Show up at 8am. The doors don't open until 9, but if you don't get there first you'll need to wait behind 7000 illegal aliens applying for a Photo ID. Even if you do get there early there'll still be a line. Bring something to read, War and Peace ought to just about fill the time.

Once you get called they'll have you fill out some forms, you'll need 3 forms of ID, and your old license can't be one of them. Then you get to go to another waiting area where you have to wait for a test station. You should have packed lunch because it'll be 2 pm before you get a station.
Now that you've gotten to your station you can begin your exam. You scan the ID they gave you and the screen comes up for you. In Spanish, which you don't read. Now you need to get the attention of an attendant, there's about 30 people working, but no one is listening to your calls for help.

You finally get someone's attention. They think you are trying to cheat on your test, and now the time has expired on your station and you've got to go back and wait.
You sit in the waiting area while those 7000 illegal aliens I mentioned file by getting their photos plastered on a shiny new ID/Driver's license. Which by the way enrolls them on the voter roles so they can vote in the next election.

Finally you get to a station, which comes up in English, and you begin.
You never get to finish since it's 4:30 and everyone knows that government workers always leave early.

"You'll need to come back tomorrow, Have a nice day!"

I don't know what your experience is with government run agencies, but I have friend from London who visited a year ago. Their little girl got hurt and needed stitches at the Emergency Room. We went and were there about 3 hours altogether. I thought I would die waiting, and I apologize to Sarah and Jay profusely for it taking so long. They thought I was joking with them. they said for the services Lexie needed they'd have been 8 or 9 hours in a hospital in London.

My example of the DMV is slightly exagerated, but to make the point that once the government gets involved with all the layers and layers of beauracracy you can bet nothing moves smoothly.

Don't be so sure that all those "illegal aliens" are her illegally. Reading this post of yours it sounds like you may have a problem with immigration in general. I know that may NOT be the case, but when you whine like this it sure makes it seem like the case.

[TGElder]

Originally Posted by MrQ1701

Don't be so sure that all those "illegal aliens" are her illegally. Reading this post of yours it sounds like you may have a problem with immigration in general. I know that may NOT be the case, but when you whine like this it sure makes it seem like the case.

I have no problem with immigration. I do have a problem when people flagrantly disregard the laws and come into my country illegally. And then set up little cadres where everything begins to look like something out of Latin America.

I have neighbors from China, and Africa, and Mexico who are all outraged at the massive illegal immigration problems they see. Mr. Liu spent over 14 years and thousands of dollars to bring his family to the US, and he is so mad when he sees people coming here illegally and being granted amnesty.
It's like standing for hours in line to see your favorite movie, only to have someone cut in line in front of you and the management say, "It's OK, and you get to get in free too."

Obama's supplemental care system will eventually drive the private insurance business out of business for everyone expect the very wealthy. What employer in his right mind is going to spend $4000-5000 per employee to provide healthcare? He can cut his overhead, and drop coverage for everyone and they'll all need to sign up for the government coverage. It's just how business works, they're there to make a profit and if they can increase their bottom line by dropping a huge cost in the lap of government(the taxpayer), you can be sure they'll save what money they can.

My friends from London pay an income tax rate of 53% for the government services that they all enjoy. That's just their "federal tax" this doesn't include sale taxes and property taxes. They are a middle class family and don't make enough to buy any private insurance.

You might think I'm a right-wing nut, but I'm just citing real life experiences to you about what these people face.

[MrQ1701]

Originally Posted by TGElder

I have no problem with immigration. I do have a problem when people flagrantly disregard the laws and come into my country illegally. And then set up little cadres where everything begins to look like something out of Latin America.

I have neighbors from China, and Africa, and Mexico who are all outraged at the massive illegal immigration problems they see. Mr. Liu spent over 14 years and thousands of dollars to bring his family to the US, and he is so mad when he sees people coming here illegally and being granted amnesty.
It's like standing for hours in line to see your favorite movie, only to have someone cut in line in front of you and the management say, "It's OK, and you get to get in free too."

I agree with your immigration views. I too do not like the disregard for our laws, but I also know that many people are here legally. I have no problem with the little "latin towns" that spring up in cities. That sort of thing has happened many times in the past with various immigrants from all over. "little Italy" and "China town" spring to mind.

I tried not make a judgment call when it came to how you feel about immigration. What I did do was tell you how your last post sounded.

Originally Posted by TGElder

Obama's supplemental care system will eventually drive the private insurance business out of business for everyone expect the very wealthy. What employer in his right mind is going to spend $4000-5000 per employee to provide healthcare? He can cut his overhead, and drop coverage for everyone and they'll all need to sign up for the government coverage. It's just how business works, they're there to make a profit and if they can increase their bottom line by dropping a huge cost in the lap of government(the taxpayer), you can be sure they'll save what money they can.

My friends from London pay an income tax rate of 53% for the government services that they all enjoy. That's just their "federal tax" this doesn't include sale taxes and property taxes. They are a middle class family and don't make enough to buy any private insurance.

You might think I'm a right-wing nut, but I'm just citing real life experiences to you about what these people face.

What employer will provide healthcare? Umm...how about the one that wants to compete for the best employees? The addition of a government option changes nothing. Sure, it will give another option that is hopefully more affordable for people that do not have health care at work or are self employed. If the government run health insurance isn't to your liking, then keep the one you have now.

I currently have 100% health care benefits from my work. It is something my union gained years ago. I do NOT pay a penny toward my health care benefits. The problem is that my employer can change the darn provider and plan whenever they want in order to save money. There are already cheap plans out there. My employer just switched from Cigna to Blue Cross Blue Shield. For many employees around here that was a step backwards. BCBS seems to have more red tape and less in network providers. My copays remained the same, but those changed a couple of years ago. I used to have a $25 copay for urgent care and $50 for emergency. Now I pay a $50 copay for urgent care and $150 for emergency. There are also a ton more copays for things like surgery that used to have NO copay.

What is too stop employers from making such changes right now? They already have cheap alternatives at their finger tips. Your argument holds no water for that very reason.

And please stop comparing what is being proposed to what is currently available in other countries. IT IS NOT THE SAME! Period. What is proposed is NOT like what is in Canada or the U.K. Do you see a single payer system being proposed? In my opinion a single payer system is the BEST way to go, but it is currently not an option because healthcare is such a large part of our economy. You know the majority of Doctors and Nurses want a single payer system. Some of the groups you see that are against it only represent a small number of those in the medical field and they are usually the ones that already make tons of money ripping people off.

The problem with current health insurance (and in my opinion the entire health care system) is that is run for a profit. Where ever you inject profit into the equation you are going to get greedy bastards that rip off the sick.

[TGElder]

Originally Posted by MrQ1701

The problem with current health insurance (and in my opinion the entire health care system) is that is run for a profit. Where ever you inject profit into the equation you are going to get greedy bastards that rip off the sick.

Profit is the incentive that drives pharmaceutical companies to make new drug therapies. Profit is what drives biotech firms to find more efficient and less invasive ways to diagnose and treat diseases.

I do know that often times profit makes bad decisions. Like treating sickness instead of curing the disease. I wouldn't be surprised if there was a cure for cancer out there somewhere, but someone is keeping it under wraps, because once you cure the disease there's no profit in treating the symptoms.

But I don't think that it will be long before you see a single server system for health care. Especially since the Obama plan limits private sellers to providing the exact same coverages as the government plan. Once they go belly up trying to compete with the government who can mandate prices where they can't. they'll fold like a house of cards and we'll have a UK or Canadian system here. Which the Brits and Canadians are telling us to avoid like the plague.

The single biggest problem with health care is insurance. And I don't mean health insurance. I'm talking about malpractice insurance. Every time a jury awards one of these massive payouts the doctor's insurance company pays out, and then they raise his rates. Once his rates go up he has to increase the cost of his services to cover the increase in cost. And he isn't the only one who gets hit, since he's likely part of a group that covers other doctors and hospitals, their rates go up, so they in turn raise the costs of their services to meet the higher rates, and you and I end up footing the bill.

[MrQ1701]

Originally Posted by TGElder

Profit is the incentive that drives pharmaceutical companies to make new drug therapies. Profit is what drives biotech firms to find more efficient and less invasive ways to diagnose and treat diseases.

Drug companies would still profit. When the government builds a bridge do you think the steel was free? Bridges are not built for profit, but the contractor that does the work makes a profit. The guys selling all the supplies makes a profit, yet you don't see a toll booth on every bridge.

The argument that drug companies would no longer be as inclined to develop new drugs or find new cures is ridiculous. I know you did not say that, but it is implied.

Originally Posted by TGElder

I do know that often times profit makes bad decisions. Like treating sickness instead of curing the disease. I wouldn't be surprised if there was a cure for cancer out there somewhere, but someone is keeping it under wraps, because once you cure the disease there's no profit in treating the symptoms.

I hope this is not the case!! I suppose it is possible, but even I do not think these greedy bastards would do such a thing!

Originally Posted by TGElder

But I don't think that it will be long before you see a single server system for health care. Especially since the Obama plan limits private sellers to providing the exact same coverages as the government plan. Once they go belly up trying to compete with the government who can mandate prices where they can't. they'll fold like a house of cards and we'll have a UK or Canadian system here. Which the Brits and Canadians are telling us to avoid like the plague.

I think a single payer type system is a NOT coming in the near future. It would be too devastating to our economy. A long transition would be needed.

I know nothing about the Obama plan limiting private insurance companies to selling the exact same coverage as the government. I believe you may be mistaken or misunderstanding. I know there are MINIMUM coverages the government will mandate, like not being able to refuse coverage for pre-existing conditions, but as far as limiting upward coverage, I don't think so. I will do more research, but if you have link to an article where this limitation is defined, let me know.

Originally Posted by TGElder

The single biggest problem with health care is insurance. And I don't mean health insurance. I'm talking about malpractice insurance. Every time a jury awards one of these massive payouts the doctor's insurance company pays out, and then they raise his rates. Once his rates go up he has to increase the cost of his services to cover the increase in cost. And he isn't the only one who gets hit, since he's likely part of a group that covers other doctors and hospitals, their rates go up, so they in turn raise the costs of their services to meet the higher rates, and you and I end up footing the bill.

We are in complete agreement here. This is also another area the Obama administration is hoping to reform in order to cut cost. I figure it will not be long before laws are passed limiting what amounts can be awarded in such cases. I know the biggest complaint to that it would effectively put a price tag on a human life, but something must be done or we all continue to pay for it.

[TGElder]

Originally Posted by MrQ1701

Drug companies would still profit. When the government builds a bridge do you think the steel was free? Bridges are not built for profit, but the contractor that does the work makes a profit. The guys selling all the supplies makes a profit, yet you don't see a toll booth on every bridge.

The argument that drug companies would no longer be as inclined to develop new drugs or find new cures is ridiculous. I know you did not say that, but it is implied.



I hope this is not the case!! I suppose it is possible, but even I do not think these greedy bastards would do such a thing!

I think it is likely for some diseases. Certain powerful people know of a curative treatment, but a less effective treatment is more costly and takes more time and therapy someone stands to make lots and lots of money by sitting on the discovery.
I know that NASA built an engine that used water for fuel. Hydrogen and oxygen were extracted from water and combusted in a Chevy 350 small block engine. The technology disappeared until people very recently began discussing alternative fuels.
A fellow in Cleveland OH, back in 1975 redesigned the carburetor on his Cadillac Fleetwood Brougham to get 50 MPG. Youngstown's TV21 an NBC affiliate covered the story. Nothing ever happened with his redesign. Maybe big oil bought these technologies to squash them?


I think a single payer type system is a NOT coming in the near future. It would be too devastating to our economy. A long transition would be needed.

It probably would take a couple of years but once the Government starts regulating how these companies can be run, it'll be harder and harder for them to stay in the black and they'll eventually fail.

I know nothing about the Obama plan limiting private insurance companies to selling the exact same coverage as the government. I believe you may be mistaken or misunderstanding. I know there are MINIMUM coverages the government will mandate, like not being able to refuse coverage for pre-existing conditions, but as far as limiting upward coverage, I don't think so. I will do more research, but if you have link to an article where this limitation is defined, let me know.

I'll need to get some things together on this. I've heard reports on Fox, and MSNBC. But I'll get some references together, if I can find the reports.
(They may not even be written yet. That Cap and Trade legislation of some 1200 pages wasn't even fully completed before they forced a vote).


We are in complete agreement here. This is also another area the Obama administration is hoping to reform in order to cut cost. I figure it will not be long before laws are passed limiting what amounts can be awarded in such cases. I know the biggest complaint to that it would effectively put a price tag on a human life, but something must be done or we all continue to pay for it.

Tort reform is the only way to control those costs. If you could stop those costs, a lot of the cost of doing business could be done away with. Another big problem is that hospitals and clinics are not being run by doctors anymore. Too many are run by corporate conglomerates that don't care anything about people just profits.

[MrQ1701]

Originally Posted by TGElder

Tort reform is the only way to control those costs. If you could stop those costs, a lot of the cost of doing business could be done away with. Another big problem is that hospitals and clinics are not being run by doctors anymore. Too many are run by corporate conglomerates that don't care anything about people just profits.

The "water engine" and the 50mpg carburator are pure myth. Splitting water into hydrogen and oxygen takes more energy than you could gain from burning them. The net is a loss. You would be better off using the energy intended to split water to directly drive a motor. Fuel cell cars are also not as "green" as many people believe. When you factor in how the hydrogen is produced, from natural gas, then fuel cell cars are nearly as bad for the environment than current internal combustion cars.

When we all drive electric cars that can get us too and from work everyday on pure electricity, and that electricity is produced from sources such as wind, wave, and solar power, then we will truly be "greener". Ethenol is NOT very green either. Currently it is primarily made from corn. The cost to produce the corn, haul it, etc... makes it just as "dirty" as gasoline. When you factor in the effect it has on food markets it also is VERY expensive. When we are able to produce ethenol from things like grass, garbage, and building debri, then it will be a great replacement for gasoline.

The bold, italic, and underline portion of your post sounds like you SUPPORT a single payer solution to heath care!

[TGElder]

Originally Posted by MrQ1701

The "water engine" and the 50mpg carburator are pure myth. Splitting water into hydrogen and oxygen takes more energy than you could gain from burning them. The net is a loss. You would be better off using the energy intended to split water to directly drive a motor. Fuel cell cars are also not as "green" as many people believe. When you factor in how the hydrogen is produced, from natural gas, then fuel cell cars are nearly as bad for the environment than current internal combustion cars.

When we all drive electric cars that can get us too and from work everyday on pure electricity, and that electricity is produced from sources such as wind, wave, and solar power, then we will truly be "greener". Ethenol is NOT very green either. Currently it is primarily made from corn. The cost to produce the corn, haul it, etc... makes it just as "dirty" as gasoline. When you factor in the effect it has on food markets it also is VERY expensive. When we are able to produce ethenol from things like grass, garbage, and building debri, then it will be a great replacement for gasoline.

The bold, italic, and underline portion of your post sounds like you SUPPORT a single payer solution to heath care!

I don't support a single payer program. I just know that doctors and patients should be making decisions about health care. Not CPA's or the government.

Yeah, Ethanol takes 3 gallons of fossil fuel to make one gallon of ethanol.
Hydrogen takes too much natural gas to produce. Looks like we should stick with the tried and true. Look at Volkswagon's TDI diesel. 58 mpg, quieter than conventional diesels, and less emissions than a gasoline fired engine, and since it's turbo charged you don't have the hesitation of normal diesel engines.

Electric vehicles aren't the answer, think about how much load would be placed on the power grid if each major metropolitan area had even 5000 such vehicles all charging at the same time. Shoot, LA has brownouts and rolling blackouts just trying to run air conditioners. Not to mention that a lead-acid battery only has enough charge for about 8 hours. I worked in the forklift industry. You need a forklift to move the battery, they run around 4000 lbs. and need to be charged for 8-10 hours each night to run for 8 hours, and those 8 aren't like you'd have on the road. The forklift doesn't have a radio, and A/C, a blower motor for heat, or all the other amenities that people expect in their automobiles. Under those loads the charge would probably get you about 4 hours between charges, and then you'd be stuck. Not to mention that your top speed on a forklift is about 15 mph, when you push an electric motor to higher speeds you increase the draw. The Chevy volt is experimental but they project a 40 mile range. With my commute I'd get to work, and about 2/3rds of the way home.
And this doesn't begin to touch on the safety issues with a 4000lb lead-acid battery. 1) Where do you put it? In the glove box? More likely in the trunk, which rules out ever stopping for groceries on the way home. 2) How do you stop the extra weight? Most cars today run between 3000 and 4000lbs, add the weight of another car and you need to upgrade the brakes in a major way. 3) If you do get in a wreck at any kind of speed, where does the inertia go? Into the other vehicle. Or perhaps that battery just keeps coming and sandwiches you between it and whatever you just hit. If you do survive the impact what do you do when the battery case is ruptured and all that acid sprays out? Now you've got acid burns on top of your other injuries, and the EMTs now have real troubles getting to you.
4) If they need to use the jaws of life to get you out, rule one is cut the battery cables to keep any charge from energizing the frame, or skin of the vehicle. If you need to hide all these batteries, to make the car appealing better make sure the cables are at least accessible.

But all this is another thread anyway.

[Howlin' Wolf]

Originally Posted by TGElder

I don't support a single payer program. I just know that doctors and patients should be making decisions about health care. Not CPA's or the government.

Yeah, Ethanol takes 3 gallons of fossil fuel to make one gallon of ethanol.
Hydrogen takes too much natural gas to produce. Looks like we should stick with the tried and true. Look at Volkswagon's TDI diesel. 58 mpg, quieter than conventional diesels, and less emissions than a gasoline fired engine, and since it's turbo charged you don't have the hesitation of normal diesel engines.

Electric vehicles aren't the answer, think about how much load would be placed on the power grid if each major metropolitan area had even 5000 such vehicles all charging at the same time. Shoot, LA has brownouts and rolling blackouts just trying to run air conditioners. Not to mention that a lead-acid battery only has enough charge for about 8 hours. I worked in the forklift industry. You need a forklift to move the battery, they run around 4000 lbs. and need to be charged for 8-10 hours each night to run for 8 hours, and those 8 aren't like you'd have on the road. The forklift doesn't have a radio, and A/C, a blower motor for heat, or all the other amenities that people expect in their automobiles. Under those loads the charge would probably get you about 4 hours between charges, and then you'd be stuck. Not to mention that your top speed on a forklift is about 15 mph, when you push an electric motor to higher speeds you increase the draw. The Chevy volt is experimental but they project a 40 mile range. With my commute I'd get to work, and about 2/3rds of the way home.
And this doesn't begin to touch on the safety issues with a 4000lb lead-acid battery. 1) Where do you put it? In the glove box? More likely in the trunk, which rules out ever stopping for groceries on the way home. 2) How do you stop the extra weight? Most cars today run between 3000 and 4000lbs, add the weight of another car and you need to upgrade the brakes in a major way. 3) If you do get in a wreck at any kind of speed, where does the inertia go? Into the other vehicle. Or perhaps that battery just keeps coming and sandwiches you between it and whatever you just hit. If you do survive the impact what do you do when the battery case is ruptured and all that acid sprays out? Now you've got acid burns on top of your other injuries, and the EMTs now have real troubles getting to you.
4) If they need to use the jaws of life to get you out, rule one is cut the battery cables to keep any charge from energizing the frame, or skin of the vehicle. If you need to hide all these batteries, to make the car appealing better make sure the cables are at least accessible.

But all this is another thread anyway.

Whew, something to think about but I felt like I needed to take a deep breath and a nap after reading that.

[MrQ1701]

TGElder,
I didn't know ethenol required so much fossil fuel to produce. If what you say is true, 3 gallons of fossil fuel to make one gallon of ethenol, then I don't understand how anyone can think it is a benefit to the environment. I have a feeling those numbers are incorrect. Probably more like 1 to 1.

Electric cars ARE the way of the future. Lead acid batteries are no longer the primary way to store energy. Lithium Ion is the current "go-to" technology. You also don't realize that charging a car everyday would be similar to running any other appliance. You are correct that the electrical grid is in need of modernization and improvement. Things like a/c systems and interior lights are also getting more efficient so they are taking less from the grid.

Don't be fooled by the 58 mpg claim for the VW TDI. That was a world record, not it's normal mpg rating. I've made almost 40mpg in my Elantra, yet it is rated at 33 mpg on the highway. Of course I got that mileage by not driving too fast, the wind direction probably helped, and it was all at highway speed.

edit: hesitation of normal diesel engines? I don't know what you mean. Diesel engines produce tons of torque down low in the rpm band. Ever see the redline on a diesel? It's probably wayyyy lower than you think. That is what makes turbos and diesel go so well together. The diesel engine produces low end "grunt" for acceleration on it's own, then the turbo has time to spool up and produce even more horse power higher in the rpm band. Turbo technology has gotten much better, so the "turbo lag" is greatly reduced. Put that same turbo on a gasoline engine and I bet the lag will be much more evident. Now technology is going toward dual turbo, one designed to spool up very quickly (give nearly immediate power gains) and the other to kick in at higher rpms, not just two of the same kind of turbo.