In article ,
says...

On Sun, 15 Jul 2012 11:23:24 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote:



"iBoaterer" wrote in message
...

In article ,
says...

"X ` Man" wrote in message
m...

On 7/14/12 6:07 PM, BAR wrote:

45% of the electricity generated in the US comes from fossil
fuels.



Gee, does that mean 55 percent doesn't? Well, then, why do anything?

What are you righties so scared of?
----------------------------------------------

BAR was in error and corrected himself.

Using round numbers, 70 percent is from fossil fuels.
19 percent from nuclear reactors.
10 percent from solar, geothermal, wind, etc.

And that is the problem, the right wing is scared to death to wean off
of fossil fuels.
-------------------------------------------

I don't think responsible Republicans are *scared* to get off our
dependence
on fossil fuels. It's a issue of practicality and reality.
Eventually we won't
be using fossil fuels but it isn't going to happen tomorrow. Solar,
wind,
geothermal have all been in development for decades. Despite the
promise
and despite the advances and improvements, they can't come close
to meeting the energy needs even as it currently exists. Now, start
adding
millions of battery powered vehicles that need electrical power to run
and
the capacity of non-fossil energy sources to charge them becomes
miniscule.

Just like the laws of conservation of energy, we (as a technology
driven society)
have a habit of solving one problem by creating another.
Not too long ago asbestos was the greatest thing since sliced bread
for
brake linings, school floor tiles and fire retardant insulation.

Oooops!

Let's talk about corn. Brazil is kicking our ass by growing sugar
cane and we invested in corn. Could have been neck and neck with
Brazil if we'd have invested in switchgrass or something that didn't
necessarily benefit the farmer constituents of some thick headed
congressmen.

Spoken like a true believer in central planning. Thinking like yours, if
it catches on, will quickly destroy the USA.

On 7/18/12 7:51 AM, BAR wrote:
In article ,
says...

On Sun, 15 Jul 2012 11:23:24 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote:



"iBoaterer" wrote in message
...

In article ,
says...

"X ` Man" wrote in message
m...

On 7/14/12 6:07 PM, BAR wrote:

45% of the electricity generated in the US comes from fossil
fuels.



Gee, does that mean 55 percent doesn't? Well, then, why do anything?

What are you righties so scared of?
----------------------------------------------

BAR was in error and corrected himself.

Using round numbers, 70 percent is from fossil fuels.
19 percent from nuclear reactors.
10 percent from solar, geothermal, wind, etc.

And that is the problem, the right wing is scared to death to wean off
of fossil fuels.
-------------------------------------------

I don't think responsible Republicans are *scared* to get off our
dependence
on fossil fuels. It's a issue of practicality and reality.
Eventually we won't
be using fossil fuels but it isn't going to happen tomorrow. Solar,
wind,
geothermal have all been in development for decades. Despite the
promise
and despite the advances and improvements, they can't come close
to meeting the energy needs even as it currently exists. Now, start
adding
millions of battery powered vehicles that need electrical power to run
and
the capacity of non-fossil energy sources to charge them becomes
miniscule.

Just like the laws of conservation of energy, we (as a technology
driven society)
have a habit of solving one problem by creating another.
Not too long ago asbestos was the greatest thing since sliced bread
for
brake linings, school floor tiles and fire retardant insulation.

Oooops!

Let's talk about corn. Brazil is kicking our ass by growing sugar
cane and we invested in corn. Could have been neck and neck with
Brazil if we'd have invested in switchgrass or something that didn't
necessarily benefit the farmer constituents of some thick headed
congressmen.

Spoken like a true believer in central planning. Thinking like yours, if
it catches on, will quickly destroy the USA.



Bertie is a well-credentialed economist, an educational background he
received while in high school and the marins.

On 7/18/12 8:07 AM, X ` Man wrote:
On 7/18/12 7:51 AM, BAR wrote:
In article ,
says...

On Sun, 15 Jul 2012 11:23:24 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote:



"iBoaterer" wrote in message
...

In article ,
says...

"X ` Man" wrote in message
m...

On 7/14/12 6:07 PM, BAR wrote:

45% of the electricity generated in the US comes from fossil
fuels.



Gee, does that mean 55 percent doesn't? Well, then, why do anything?

What are you righties so scared of?
----------------------------------------------

BAR was in error and corrected himself.

Using round numbers, 70 percent is from fossil fuels.
19 percent from nuclear reactors.
10 percent from solar, geothermal, wind, etc.

And that is the problem, the right wing is scared to death to wean off
of fossil fuels.
-------------------------------------------

I don't think responsible Republicans are *scared* to get off our
dependence
on fossil fuels. It's a issue of practicality and reality.
Eventually we won't
be using fossil fuels but it isn't going to happen tomorrow. Solar,
wind,
geothermal have all been in development for decades. Despite the
promise
and despite the advances and improvements, they can't come close
to meeting the energy needs even as it currently exists. Now, start
adding
millions of battery powered vehicles that need electrical power to run
and
the capacity of non-fossil energy sources to charge them becomes
miniscule.

Just like the laws of conservation of energy, we (as a technology
driven society)
have a habit of solving one problem by creating another.
Not too long ago asbestos was the greatest thing since sliced bread
for
brake linings, school floor tiles and fire retardant insulation.

Oooops!

Let's talk about corn. Brazil is kicking our ass by growing sugar
cane and we invested in corn. Could have been neck and neck with
Brazil if we'd have invested in switchgrass or something that didn't
necessarily benefit the farmer constituents of some thick headed
congressmen.

Spoken like a true believer in central planning. Thinking like yours, if
it catches on, will quickly destroy the USA.



Bertie is a well-credentialed economist, an educational background he
received while in high school and the marins.


er, marines.

In article , dump-on-
says...

On 7/18/12 8:07 AM, X ` Man wrote:
On 7/18/12 7:51 AM, BAR wrote:
In article ,
says...

On Sun, 15 Jul 2012 11:23:24 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote:



"iBoaterer" wrote in message
...

In article ,
says...

"X ` Man" wrote in message
m...

On 7/14/12 6:07 PM, BAR wrote:

45% of the electricity generated in the US comes from fossil
fuels.



Gee, does that mean 55 percent doesn't? Well, then, why do anything?

What are you righties so scared of?
----------------------------------------------

BAR was in error and corrected himself.

Using round numbers, 70 percent is from fossil fuels.
19 percent from nuclear reactors.
10 percent from solar, geothermal, wind, etc.

And that is the problem, the right wing is scared to death to wean off
of fossil fuels.
-------------------------------------------

I don't think responsible Republicans are *scared* to get off our
dependence
on fossil fuels. It's a issue of practicality and reality.
Eventually we won't
be using fossil fuels but it isn't going to happen tomorrow. Solar,
wind,
geothermal have all been in development for decades. Despite the
promise
and despite the advances and improvements, they can't come close
to meeting the energy needs even as it currently exists. Now, start
adding
millions of battery powered vehicles that need electrical power to run
and
the capacity of non-fossil energy sources to charge them becomes
miniscule.

Just like the laws of conservation of energy, we (as a technology
driven society)
have a habit of solving one problem by creating another.
Not too long ago asbestos was the greatest thing since sliced bread
for
brake linings, school floor tiles and fire retardant insulation.

Oooops!

Let's talk about corn. Brazil is kicking our ass by growing sugar
cane and we invested in corn. Could have been neck and neck with
Brazil if we'd have invested in switchgrass or something that didn't
necessarily benefit the farmer constituents of some thick headed
congressmen.

Spoken like a true believer in central planning. Thinking like yours, if
it catches on, will quickly destroy the USA.



Bertie is a well-credentialed economist, an educational background he
received while in high school and the marins.


er, marines.

Don will surely chastise you for that.

On Tue, 17 Jul 2012 15:38:59 -0400, wrote:

On Tue, 17 Jul 2012 10:41:02 -0700, jps wrote:

On Mon, 16 Jul 2012 18:37:51 -0400, wrote:


If your health care costs were 90% lower, you might not mind paying 4X
for electricity.

My family insurance premiums, including dental, are nearly $20K/anum,
without copays or deductibles. I'm putting $6K into an FSA this year
that will cover the rest.

If a bullfrog had wings he wouldn't bump his ass all the time either.

Where was there EVER a plan to cut health care costs by 90%?

If you mean Germany you need to look at the whole tax load, not just
the energy taxes,

I'm talking about single payer, universal health care.


The German system is not single payer.

True. It's unversal health care, administered by the government but
funded by both taxes and employer/employee contributions.

Low wage workers are exempted from the health insurance taxes.

On 7/18/12 7:13 PM, jps wrote:
On Tue, 17 Jul 2012 15:38:59 -0400, wrote:

On Tue, 17 Jul 2012 10:41:02 -0700, jps wrote:

On Mon, 16 Jul 2012 18:37:51 -0400, wrote:


If your health care costs were 90% lower, you might not mind paying 4X
for electricity.

My family insurance premiums, including dental, are nearly $20K/anum,
without copays or deductibles. I'm putting $6K into an FSA this year
that will cover the rest.

If a bullfrog had wings he wouldn't bump his ass all the time either.

Where was there EVER a plan to cut health care costs by 90%?

If you mean Germany you need to look at the whole tax load, not just
the energy taxes,

I'm talking about single payer, universal health care.


The German system is not single payer.

True. It's unversal health care, administered by the government but
funded by both taxes and employer/employee contributions.

Low wage workers are exempted from the health insurance taxes.


Lots of countries have universal health care, but we don't. Further, for
a number of illnesses and for the indigent, the waiting periods to get
into a publicly funded facility can run a half year or more. In the
Seattle area, for example, there hardly is any help available for the
indigent facing serious mental health issues.

In article ,
says...

On Tue, 17 Jul 2012 15:38:59 -0400, wrote:

On Tue, 17 Jul 2012 10:41:02 -0700, jps wrote:

On Mon, 16 Jul 2012 18:37:51 -0400, wrote:


If your health care costs were 90% lower, you might not mind paying 4X
for electricity.

My family insurance premiums, including dental, are nearly $20K/anum,
without copays or deductibles. I'm putting $6K into an FSA this year
that will cover the rest.

If a bullfrog had wings he wouldn't bump his ass all the time either.

Where was there EVER a plan to cut health care costs by 90%?

If you mean Germany you need to look at the whole tax load, not just
the energy taxes,

I'm talking about single payer, universal health care.


The German system is not single payer.

True. It's unversal health care, administered by the government but
funded by both taxes and employer/employee contributions.

Low wage workers are exempted from the health insurance taxes.

They may be exempted from paying it but it is part of their total
compensation. If they were exempted the employers would have to pay them
more so that they could pay the "tax."

On Wed, 18 Jul 2012 20:26:58 -0400, X ` Man
wrote:

In the
Seattle area, for example, there hardly is any help available for the
indigent facing serious mental health issues.

========

That appears to be true in Maryland also.

On 7/18/12 11:28 PM, Wayne B wrote:
On Wed, 18 Jul 2012 20:26:58 -0400, X ` Man
wrote:

In the
Seattle area, for example, there hardly is any help available for the
indigent facing serious mental health issues.

========

That appears to be true in Maryland also.


Next time you are in Maryland, I'm sure my wife can find you a therapist
who charges on a sliding scale. It's always "the right" that pokes fun
at the indigent population, like that in Seattle, who can't get medical
services. Assholes, all of you.

In article , dump-on-
says...

On 7/18/12 11:28 PM, Wayne B wrote:
On Wed, 18 Jul 2012 20:26:58 -0400, X ` Man
wrote:

In the
Seattle area, for example, there hardly is any help available for the
indigent facing serious mental health issues.

========

That appears to be true in Maryland also.


Next time you are in Maryland, I'm sure my wife can find you a therapist
who charges on a sliding scale. It's always "the right" that pokes fun
at the indigent population, like that in Seattle, who can't get medical
services. Assholes, all of you.

WHOOOOOSH.............