The cost of boating just went up. Gas hits all-time high.
 

"Calif Bill" wrote in message
ink.net...

"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message
...
"Calif Bill" wrote in message
link.net...

"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message
...
"Calif Bill" wrote in message
ink.net...

"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message
...
"Eisboch" wrote in message
. ..

Do you know what cracks me up about some of the various views
expressed about fuel prices?

It wasn't too many years ago that those with more left leaning
political views were concerned about the high consumption rate of
gasoline in the USA, it's continued supply and it's artificially low
price per gallon compared to the rest of the world. Conservation
was preached, encouraged and some even advocated raising the price
of gas to force further conservation and the use of smaller, fuel
efficient autos in order to reduce demand.


Fast forward to today and it seems that the same people are now
blaming big business greed and politicians lining their pockets for
the natural increase in prices.

Can't win.

Eisboch


The problem with preaching conservation is that the suggested methods
usually involve long term solutions. I wonder what would happen if a
real president with some balls said the following during one of his
TV appearances:

"I can fund research until the cows come home, but we might never
find solutions which make every type of vehicle more efficient. And,
at some point, you have to stop looking for others to find solutions,
and volunteer to do the one thing that's inarguably effective. Next
time you're ready to buy a car, be honest, and buy based on your real
needs. Stop thinking that the only alternative to an SUV is a Ford
Focus. Ignore the crap you're being told in the commercials. Is the
only reason you bought an SUV that you have a family of 5 and a
week's worth of groceries? Wouldn't a van fit your needs equally
well? Did you justify the SUV by convincing yourself they were safer,
or that you wanted to be able to see over all the other trucks? Did
you buy a pickup to haul 3 sheets of plywood just once in the entire
time you owned the vehicle? Those aren't reasons. I'm not saying you
have to go out and buy a Prius or a Mini-Cooper. But, how about
reducing your gas usage by 30%, just by looking at the difference
between an SUV and a mini-van? (points to chart with 5 car models
shown below) We can't create laws to change your buying habits, and
there's nothing I can do about what oil companies charge for fuel.
But, you are capable of having a significant impact on how much oil
this country uses.

If you're not buying a car this year, write to your favorite car
manufacturer and tell them what you want to buy when you're ready. If
they continue to pile up SUVs at their dealerships, that's their
problem, not yours.

During WWII, our grandparents planted victory gardens. You can't pick
a better car, in order to help this country? Grow up already."


Toyota Sequoia SUV: 15/18 mpg
Toyota Sienna van: 19/26 mpg
Chrysler Town & Country van: 19/26 mpg
Ford Crown Victoria: 17/26 mpg
Buick Lucerne: 17/28 mpg


What is an SUV? My wife drives a 1996 S-10 Blazer. It is smaller
than the Sienna van.


You know exactly what I mean. Stick with the example shown, since it is
100% valid in this context.


Nope, what is an SUV? The boogey man of the 21st century. Why is it
when an SUV type vehicle is in an accident, it is always reported the
SUV crashed. But if it is a mini car that crashed into the SUV, it will
read SUV involed in accident. The first reporting seems as if the SUV
is doing the driving, not a person.


Look at the list of vehicles I provided. It does not contain a generic
SUV. It contains a specific one which may be representative of others
which get similar mileage. Any normal person should be able to interpret
that list and say "Yeah...mine's like that one", or not.

Any normal person.


I was referring to your "SUV".


You did a great job of "referring" to it. You mentioned a Blazer, and
provided no numbers to show whether it belonged in the list. No mpg numbers,
and your words are empty.

The cost of boating just went up. Gas hits all-time high.
 

"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 09 May 2007 01:49:10 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message
. ..
On Tue, 08 May 2007 20:10:27 -0500, John H.
wrote:

Someone like Mario Cuomo
would be an example of someone real

BBBAAAWWWWAAAHHHHHHAAAAA!!!!

Please - somebody make him stop - I'm having stomach cramps from
laughing too hard.

BBAAAAWWAAAAAHHHHHHAAAAA!!!!!

Cuomo may not be your choice, but I know this: If it were up to you to
choose a president, with no input from anyone else, there is no way you
would've chosen Bush.

Oh - you "know" that?

Tell me - know do you "know" that?

Please - enlighten me.

You're much too smart to choose someone like Bush. I don't believe you'd
choose anyone who crumbles without a script, 100% of the time.

The cost of boating just went up. Gas hits all-time high.
 

"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 09 May 2007 01:49:59 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message
. ..
On Tue, 08 May 2007 17:27:10 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

Toyota Sequoia SUV: 15/18 mpg
Toyota Sienna van: 19/26 mpg
Chrysler Town & Country van: 19/26 mpg
Ford Crown Victoria: 17/26 mpg
Buick Lucerne: 17/28 mpg

Ford F-25- 7.3 liter diesel - 17/22 mpg

Anything higher than a given number is higher than a given number. Your
example fits.

Wha?

Yep. Your truck's an 18% improvement over a vehicle that gets 18 mpg. It's
gooder.

The cost of boating just went up. Gas hits all-time high.
 

On Tue, 08 May 2007 20:07:54 -0400, Wayne.B
wrote:

On 8 May 2007 10:45:56 -0700, Chuck Gould
wrote:

The oil companies have a right to earn a profit. We don't have any
right to cheap oil. The frustration is in being so blatantly
manipulated, and a minor amusement is hearing the programmed
apologists offering the freshest round of big oil excuses for the
various refinery emergencies that just happen to occur during the same
strategically beneficial period each year.

OK, so let's assume this is all true and that US petro consumers are
being manipulated to death and taking it in the shorts.

Where else in the world other than Venezuela and a few other big oil
producers can you buy more cheaply? If the oil companies were having
trouble selling their product, prices would drop in a hurry. Is that
supply and demand, or is it manipulation?

The majority of gasoline sold is used for "essentials." Getting to
work, and getting the groceries. There is no real price competition
because it is a limited resource and there are just a few retailers.
With gasoline so far no entrepreneur has come up with a better or
cheaper mousetrap.
Prices can be easily manipulated and are manipulated. Happens in all
businesses which control a limited resource - including trained
personnel - until that resource can be increased or replaced.
I've benefitted from that myself.
Price manipulation is a product of supply and demand, real or not in
the case of such a closely held commodity like gasoline.
I haven't heard of gas stations running out of gas during this recent
spike, but the oil companies can say they are raising prices to
prevent that from happening. Who will dispute that?
Personally gas prices don't affect me much, and never have.
High gas prices most affect people who use a lot of it.
Makes sense to just use less if you can't afford it.
Of course for many people that ends up causing a yo-yo effect;
gas is expensive, buy an economy car, gas is cheap, get a Hummer,
gas gets expensive, back to the economy car.
Some people will just have to make adjustments, and low-paid people
who have to drive a good distance to work will suffer most.
I've got my views on how to solve the gas price "problem," but I've
decided to leave it up to the newsgroup to get this issue resolved.
I'll just wait for that to happen.

--Vic

The cost of boating just went up. Gas hits all-time high.
 

"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message
...
"Calif Bill" wrote in message
ink.net...

"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message
...
"Calif Bill" wrote in message
link.net...

"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message
...
"Calif Bill" wrote in message
ink.net...

"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message
...
"Eisboch" wrote in message
. ..

Do you know what cracks me up about some of the various views
expressed about fuel prices?

It wasn't too many years ago that those with more left leaning
political views were concerned about the high consumption rate of
gasoline in the USA, it's continued supply and it's artificially
low price per gallon compared to the rest of the world.
Conservation was preached, encouraged and some even advocated
raising the price of gas to force further conservation and the use
of smaller, fuel efficient autos in order to reduce demand.


Fast forward to today and it seems that the same people are now
blaming big business greed and politicians lining their pockets for
the natural increase in prices.

Can't win.

Eisboch


The problem with preaching conservation is that the suggested
methods usually involve long term solutions. I wonder what would
happen if a real president with some balls said the following during
one of his TV appearances:

"I can fund research until the cows come home, but we might never
find solutions which make every type of vehicle more efficient. And,
at some point, you have to stop looking for others to find
solutions, and volunteer to do the one thing that's inarguably
effective. Next time you're ready to buy a car, be honest, and buy
based on your real needs. Stop thinking that the only alternative to
an SUV is a Ford Focus. Ignore the crap you're being told in the
commercials. Is the only reason you bought an SUV that you have a
family of 5 and a week's worth of groceries? Wouldn't a van fit your
needs equally well? Did you justify the SUV by convincing yourself
they were safer, or that you wanted to be able to see over all the
other trucks? Did you buy a pickup to haul 3 sheets of plywood just
once in the entire time you owned the vehicle? Those aren't reasons.
I'm not saying you have to go out and buy a Prius or a Mini-Cooper.
But, how about reducing your gas usage by 30%, just by looking at
the difference between an SUV and a mini-van? (points to chart with
5 car models shown below) We can't create laws to change your buying
habits, and there's nothing I can do about what oil companies charge
for fuel. But, you are capable of having a significant impact on how
much oil this country uses.

If you're not buying a car this year, write to your favorite car
manufacturer and tell them what you want to buy when you're ready.
If they continue to pile up SUVs at their dealerships, that's their
problem, not yours.

During WWII, our grandparents planted victory gardens. You can't
pick a better car, in order to help this country? Grow up already."


Toyota Sequoia SUV: 15/18 mpg
Toyota Sienna van: 19/26 mpg
Chrysler Town & Country van: 19/26 mpg
Ford Crown Victoria: 17/26 mpg
Buick Lucerne: 17/28 mpg


What is an SUV? My wife drives a 1996 S-10 Blazer. It is smaller
than the Sienna van.


You know exactly what I mean. Stick with the example shown, since it
is 100% valid in this context.


Nope, what is an SUV? The boogey man of the 21st century. Why is it
when an SUV type vehicle is in an accident, it is always reported the
SUV crashed. But if it is a mini car that crashed into the SUV, it
will read SUV involed in accident. The first reporting seems as if the
SUV is doing the driving, not a person.


Look at the list of vehicles I provided. It does not contain a generic
SUV. It contains a specific one which may be representative of others
which get similar mileage. Any normal person should be able to interpret
that list and say "Yeah...mine's like that one", or not.

Any normal person.


I was referring to your "SUV".


You did a great job of "referring" to it. You mentioned a Blazer, and
provided no numbers to show whether it belonged in the list. No mpg
numbers, and your words are empty.


Blazer used to get 19-20 highway. Since it is a run around town car anymore
with 140k miles, never check the mileage. The only reason I know the
mileage on the diesel truck is the computer tells me.

The cost of boating just went up. Gas hits all-time high.
 

"Calif Bill" wrote in message
nk.net...

"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message
...
"Calif Bill" wrote in message
ink.net...

"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message
...
"Calif Bill" wrote in message
link.net...

"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message
...
"Calif Bill" wrote in message
ink.net...

"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message
...
"Eisboch" wrote in message
. ..

Do you know what cracks me up about some of the various views
expressed about fuel prices?

It wasn't too many years ago that those with more left leaning
political views were concerned about the high consumption rate of
gasoline in the USA, it's continued supply and it's artificially
low price per gallon compared to the rest of the world.
Conservation was preached, encouraged and some even advocated
raising the price of gas to force further conservation and the use
of smaller, fuel efficient autos in order to reduce demand.


Fast forward to today and it seems that the same people are now
blaming big business greed and politicians lining their pockets
for the natural increase in prices.

Can't win.

Eisboch


The problem with preaching conservation is that the suggested
methods usually involve long term solutions. I wonder what would
happen if a real president with some balls said the following
during one of his TV appearances:

"I can fund research until the cows come home, but we might never
find solutions which make every type of vehicle more efficient.
And, at some point, you have to stop looking for others to find
solutions, and volunteer to do the one thing that's inarguably
effective. Next time you're ready to buy a car, be honest, and buy
based on your real needs. Stop thinking that the only alternative
to an SUV is a Ford Focus. Ignore the crap you're being told in the
commercials. Is the only reason you bought an SUV that you have a
family of 5 and a week's worth of groceries? Wouldn't a van fit
your needs equally well? Did you justify the SUV by convincing
yourself they were safer, or that you wanted to be able to see over
all the other trucks? Did you buy a pickup to haul 3 sheets of
plywood just once in the entire time you owned the vehicle? Those
aren't reasons. I'm not saying you have to go out and buy a Prius
or a Mini-Cooper. But, how about reducing your gas usage by 30%,
just by looking at the difference between an SUV and a mini-van?
(points to chart with 5 car models shown below) We can't create
laws to change your buying habits, and there's nothing I can do
about what oil companies charge for fuel. But, you are capable of
having a significant impact on how much oil this country uses.

If you're not buying a car this year, write to your favorite car
manufacturer and tell them what you want to buy when you're ready.
If they continue to pile up SUVs at their dealerships, that's their
problem, not yours.

During WWII, our grandparents planted victory gardens. You can't
pick a better car, in order to help this country? Grow up already."


Toyota Sequoia SUV: 15/18 mpg
Toyota Sienna van: 19/26 mpg
Chrysler Town & Country van: 19/26 mpg
Ford Crown Victoria: 17/26 mpg
Buick Lucerne: 17/28 mpg


What is an SUV? My wife drives a 1996 S-10 Blazer. It is smaller
than the Sienna van.


You know exactly what I mean. Stick with the example shown, since it
is 100% valid in this context.


Nope, what is an SUV? The boogey man of the 21st century. Why is it
when an SUV type vehicle is in an accident, it is always reported the
SUV crashed. But if it is a mini car that crashed into the SUV, it
will read SUV involed in accident. The first reporting seems as if
the SUV is doing the driving, not a person.


Look at the list of vehicles I provided. It does not contain a generic
SUV. It contains a specific one which may be representative of others
which get similar mileage. Any normal person should be able to
interpret that list and say "Yeah...mine's like that one", or not.

Any normal person.


I was referring to your "SUV".


You did a great job of "referring" to it. You mentioned a Blazer, and
provided no numbers to show whether it belonged in the list. No mpg
numbers, and your words are empty.


Blazer used to get 19-20 highway. Since it is a run around town car
anymore with 140k miles, never check the mileage. The only reason I know
the mileage on the diesel truck is the computer tells me.


"Around town" numbers are meaningless anyway, for a long list of reasons.

The cost of boating just went up. Gas hits all-time high.
 

On May 8, 5:07�pm, Wayne.B wrote:
On 8 May 2007 10:45:56 -0700, Chuck Gould
wrote:

The oil companies have a right to earn a profit. We don't have any
right to cheap oil. The frustration is in being so blatantly
manipulated, and a minor amusement is hearing the programmed
apologists offering the freshest round of big oil excuses for the
various refinery emergencies that just happen to occur during the same
strategically beneficial period each year.

OK, so let's assume this is all true and that US petro consumers are
being manipulated to death and taking it in the shorts.

Where else in the world other than Venezuela and a few other big oil
producers can you buy more cheaply? *If the oil companies were having
trouble selling their product, prices would drop in a hurry. *Is that
supply and demand, or is it manipulation?

We're *exporting* refined products from refineries in the Pacific NW
and then justifying some of the highest prices in the nation 'round
here based on "shortage of supply". So the answer to your question is
really both. It's supply and demand, with a manipulated supply side of
the equation.

The cost of boating just went up. Gas hits all-time high.
 

Chuck Gould wrote:
On May 8, 5:40�am, animal05 wrote:
You also have to factor in the supply issue. �Price is a way of
manipulating demand. �If price remained constant and supply dropped
below demand, shortages and/or outages would occur. �Lets face it, in a
capitalistic market, if someone else can supply more of the same goods
for slightly less, making more overall profit, they will. �My
understanding is that currently there is a shortage of refined product,
due to some refineries either off line or retooling. �Part of the
problem is the hundreds of different formulas required by the feds
around the country.

The rules of a capitalistic market do not apply when the raw materials
are controlled by an oligopoly. There is no opportunity for new
players to enter the field and supply superior or cheaper refined
products. Even *if* there were a new and independent refinery built,
the operators would need to rely on their competitors for raw
materials....not a good business model in any industry.

There is a shortage of refined product because world demand has
increased to the point where there is no longer any surplus supply.
Every drop will sell. By choosing to "retool and repair" refineries
during the onset of the peak demand months, the oil companies short
the market in some economies and drive prices up dramatically in
response. The normal risk of shorting the market is that your
competitor will increase supply to meet the demand, which could cost
you relationships with your customers and leave you with unsold
product.

When any member of an oligopoly shorts the market, it benefits the
other members as well. There is no need for outright, formal, illegal
"collusion". Because worldwide demand exceeds supply, there is no risk
of a competitor ramping up production to steal your customers- you
will find somebody, somewhere, willing to pay whatever you want to
charge. If that attitude disrupts economies or creates hardships for
people who have previously relied on a predictable supply of a product
at a predictable price that's too fricking bad. The oil companies are
in business to make a profit......period.

It goes without saying that boating will suffer, probably very badly,
as fuel costs
go higher and higher every year. That's been the trend for three
years, and any realistic person would have to assume that (excuses
about refineries, floods, hurricanes, etc aside) it's now the basic
business formula for BIGOIL. Few people are going to buy any
recreational vessel or vehicle that needs to consume enormous
quantities of petroleum products to operate, and who can blame them?
Tough as it is when the costs are $4-5 at the fuel dock, imagine what
would happen if fuel goes to $6-7, or $7-8? The volatility of fuel
prices and the very real possibility that they could be double what
they are now in just a couple of years has to discourage any
reasonable person from "investing" a couple of hundred thousand in a
boat, or taking out a 15-year marine mortgage to make payments for
one.

I think I can see where we're going on a few fronts over the next few
to several years, and I wish the picture were slightly prettier from
here. We're entering an era of fewer options for all but the folks in
the very highest income brackets, as well as when a flock of
consequences begin coming home to roost.


Exactly on target. Others will try to brand you as anti Big Business
etc. They view unregulated (unpoliced) Big Business as some sort of holy
grail when in fact it is just the opposite of holy. Maximum Profits are
their only "morals" and without Laws(morals) they rape and pillage as
they damned well please. The Consumers can't do a thing about it and
the Business Government won't protect consumers. It the same as if
Genghis Kahn was back in the saddle and raping the People only its Big Oil.

The cost of boating just went up. Gas hits all-time high.
 

On 8 May 2007 20:50:52 -0700, Chuck Gould
wrote:

We're *exporting* refined products from refineries in the Pacific NW
and then justifying some of the highest prices in the nation 'round
here based on "shortage of supply". So the answer to your question is
really both. It's supply and demand, with a manipulated supply side of
the equation.

If they are exporting refined product, it says to me that they are
able to sell it for more somewhere else.

That's demand.

The cost of boating just went up. Gas hits all-time high.
 

"wf3h" wrote in message
ps.com...

NOYB wrote:
"wf3h" wrote in message

what i love about this is, when ira magaziner and hilary clintion
tried to get us universal health care

To which office was Hillary elected to in 1992?

to the office she was appointed to by the president of the USA. ever
hear of THAT office?

No, what's the name of it?

(And I asked about the office she was *elected* to in 1992)


Then what right did she have to make policy that would have destroyed the
healthcare system for 260,000,000 Americans with insurance so that
40,000,000 uninsured could get access?

and when DID you stop beating your wife? incidentally, 300,000,000
americans use energy....that dick cheney feels so deeply belongs only
to the rich.


85% of this country is getting along just fine with the health insurance
that they have, but the Democrats want to muck things up for them in order
to benefit the 15% who are uninsured. Smells of socialism to me. And it
stinks.

If you want socialism, move to the EU.

The cost of boating just went up. Gas hits all-time high.
 

On Wed, 09 May 2007 16:31:06 +0000, NOYB wrote:


85% of this country is getting along just fine with the health insurance
that they have,

Really? 85% may be insured, but that doesn't mean they are getting along
just fine. I found one poll that suggests health care cost is the
country's biggest worry.

http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=581677

Our health care system accounts for over 15% GDP. Funny, but those
countries with universal health care have costs around 10% GDP, or less.
That 5% puts us at a considerable disadvantage in the global market
place. You may not have noticed, but many companies have. General
Motors, for instance, has been expanding it's operations in Canada, while
shrinking them here. Want to guess the reason?

http://www.counterpunch.org/lindorff04192005.html



but the Democrats want to muck things up for them in
order to benefit the 15% who are uninsured. Smells of socialism to me.
And it stinks.

If you want socialism, move to the EU.

The cost of boating just went up. Gas hits all-time high.
 

"thunder" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 09 May 2007 16:31:06 +0000, NOYB wrote:


85% of this country is getting along just fine with the health insurance
that they have,

Really? 85% may be insured, but that doesn't mean they are getting along
just fine. I found one poll that suggests health care cost is the
country's biggest worry.

http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=581677

Our health care system accounts for over 15% GDP. Funny, but those
countries with universal health care have costs around 10% GDP, or less.
That 5% puts us at a considerable disadvantage in the global market
place. You may not have noticed, but many companies have. General
Motors, for instance, has been expanding it's operations in Canada, while
shrinking them here. Want to guess the reason?

http://www.counterpunch.org/lindorff04192005.html



We need to control court/jury awards on malpractice and other medical
lawsuits. If that is not controlled then you can forget about other plans.

The cost of boating just went up. Gas hits all-time high.
 

On May 9, 12:31 pm, "NOYB" wrote:
"wf3h" wrote in message

ps.com...



NOYB wrote:
"wf3h" wrote in message

what i love about this is, when ira magaziner and hilary clintion
tried to get us universal health care

To which office was Hillary elected to in 1992?

to the office she was appointed to by the president of the USA. ever
hear of THAT office?

No, what's the name of it?

(And I asked about the office she was *elected* to in 1992)



Then what right did she have to make policy that would have destroyed the
healthcare system for 260,000,000 Americans with insurance so that
40,000,000 uninsured could get access?

One could wonder if someone with a bunch of stock and a huge bully
pulpit could build up pharm stocks by touting a new, say, health plan!
Then they could short it, and dump the plan down the river...
hummmmmmm, someone could make a lot of money like that, maybe even a
little over a million!

The cost of boating just went up. Gas hits all-time high.
 

"NOYB" wrote in message
link.net...
Thank you, Madam Speaker. You're doing a bang-up job.

The Great Oil Robbery

By Dave Lindorff
Created May 8 2007 - 10:12am

In case you're wondering why crude oil prices are down from last year,
hanging around at about $60 a barrel, while gasoline prices have soared past
$3.10/gallon nationwide, just check out the latest profit reports from the
oil companies. They are at record levels.

The answer for this seeming contradiction is simple: Americans are being
robbed blind by the oil industry.

Sure, the oil companies, and their PR and lobbying agency, the American
Petroleum Institute, will give you all kinds of reasons for higher gasoline
prices at a time of falling crude prices: problems at two refineries in
Texas and Oklahoma, rising demand or whatever. But the real answer is that
there is simply no competitive market in this industry.

As Tim Hamilton, a researcher and petroleum industry consultant with the
Foundation for Taxpayer and Consumer Rights, observes, the oil companies all
store their crude oil and refined gasoline in the same tanks, and all know
exactly how much inventory each other company has, so they don't have to
meet and collude on pricing in order to reap the huge rewards of deliberate
supply constraints.

Says Hamilton, "Years ago, you had companies that would try to guess when
the other companies were going to have supply shortfalls of gasoline in the
summer. They'd ramp up their own gasoline refining and then supply the
market at a lower price and eat their competitors' lunches, the same way
General Motors would do if Ford had a problem on its assembly line. But
today, no oil company would do that. They all benefit by keeping the
supplies tight."

Hamilton says that the oil industry has in practice conspired to limit
refining capacity, so that companies can keep pushing up the price of gas
artificially--only they've done this without ever having to meet in secret
and cut a deal, because they all have complete competitive information on
each others' inventories, internal pricing, and refinery capacity.

"There's no correlation any longer between crude oil prices and gasoline
prices," he insists. "Crude could drop to $10/barrel, and you could still
have gasoline go to $4/gallon. All the crude oil price does is set a floor
on gasoline prices."

As an indication of how much control the oil industry has over retail
gasoline prices, Hamilton points to a study he did, looking at the price of
gas approaching Election Day. His results are truly disturbing.

The oil industry has been a solid backer of Republicans for many years,
giving 80-90 percent of its campaign contributions to GOP
candidates--particularly during the two Bush terms. What Hamilton discovered
is that this support hasn't just been limited to campaign contributions. In
fact, the oil industry appears to have clearly tried to minimize voter anger
at Republicans late during the election cycle by pushing prices at the pump
down just ahead of the voting. In the period 2000-2006, Hamilton found that
each non-federal election year--2001, 2003 and 2005, gasoline prices didn't
decline during the month of October, but each of the election years--2000,
2002, 2004 and 2006--they fell, with the most dramatic drop coming in
October 2006--a period when crude oil prices were rising sharply. Each time,
gasoline prices rose again quickly right after the election was over.

"This is a set of coincidences you'd be hard-pressed to explain by anything
but planning," says Hamilton. (And incidentally, it would be interesting,
when Congress gets those Karl Rove emails from the Republican Party and the
White House mainframe computer, to see if there are any to the American
Petroleum Institute.)

The whole situation makes a joke of Bush proposals for opening up the
Alaskan North Slope to more oil exploration, or for Republican calls for an
easing up on environmental regulations for new refinery construction. Says
Hamilton, "The price of oil produced in Alaska will be set in Saudi Arabia,
and any new supply of crude from Alaska won't affect American gasoline
prices in the slightest. And as for new refineries, why would any oil
company want to spent $1 billon or more to add refinery capacity so they
could get less money for the gasoline they're selling? There isn't enough
money in the federal treasury to subsidize the building of new refinery
capacity in America."

The irony here is that it is higher prices for gasoline that might
eventually convince Americans to use less gasoline, and to reduce the
production of greenhouse gasses. But where those higher prices in Europe
come in the form of taxes, which can then be used to subsidize public
transportation or retirement and healthcare programs, in the U.S. the higher
prices simply go to the bottom line of the oil companies, and into the
pockets of oil company shareholders, leaving public transit, retirement and
healthcare programs under funded, and leaving lower-income workers stuck
with higher bills to get themselves to and from work in their cars.

Until the public recognizes that the illusion of competition carefully
maintained by the oil industry and its backers in the government is just
that--an illusion--this astounding rip-off will continue.

The cost of boating just went up. Gas hits all-time high.
 

"Eisboch" wrote in message
. ..

Do you know what cracks me up about some of the various views expressed
about fuel prices?

It wasn't too many years ago that those with more left leaning political
views were concerned about the high consumption rate of gasoline in the
USA, it's continued supply and it's artificially low price per gallon
compared to the rest of the world. Conservation was preached, encouraged
and some even advocated raising the price of gas to force further
conservation and the use of smaller, fuel efficient autos in order to
reduce demand.



In Europe where gas is outrageously expensive, it is due to high tax on gas.
The high tax funds things like public transportation, conservation,
alternative energy, etc. . The Democrats wanted to raise taxes on gas and
the republicans screamed and would not agree to it. Now we have the high
gas prices but it all goes to big oils bottom line and the America is behind
the world in public transportation and alternative energy. Way to go
republicans!

The cost of boating just went up. Gas hits all-time high.
 

wrote in message
oups.com...
On May 9, 12:31 pm, "NOYB" wrote:
"wf3h" wrote in message

ps.com...



NOYB wrote:
"wf3h" wrote in message

what i love about this is, when ira magaziner and hilary clintion
tried to get us universal health care

To which office was Hillary elected to in 1992?

to the office she was appointed to by the president of the USA. ever
hear of THAT office?

No, what's the name of it?

(And I asked about the office she was *elected* to in 1992)



Then what right did she have to make policy that would have destroyed
the
healthcare system for 260,000,000 Americans with insurance so that
40,000,000 uninsured could get access?

One could wonder if someone with a bunch of stock and a huge bully
pulpit could build up pharm stocks by touting a new, say, health plan!
Then they could short it, and dump the plan down the river...
hummmmmmm, someone could make a lot of money like that, maybe even a
little over a million!


Maybe a little over a million *years* in the slammer. 8)

The cost of boating just went up. Gas hits all-time high.
 

"John" wrote in message
...

"Eisboch" wrote in message
. ..

Do you know what cracks me up about some of the various views expressed
about fuel prices?

It wasn't too many years ago that those with more left leaning political
views were concerned about the high consumption rate of gasoline in the
USA, it's continued supply and it's artificially low price per gallon
compared to the rest of the world. Conservation was preached, encouraged
and some even advocated raising the price of gas to force further
conservation and the use of smaller, fuel efficient autos in order to
reduce demand.



In Europe where gas is outrageously expensive, it is due to high tax on
gas. The high tax funds things like public transportation, conservation,
alternative energy, etc. . The Democrats wanted to raise taxes on gas and
the republicans screamed and would not agree to it. Now we have the high
gas prices but it all goes to big oils bottom line and the America is
behind the world in public transportation and alternative energy. Way to
go republicans!




Bassy, is that you?

The cost of boating just went up. Gas hits all-time high.
 

"John" wrote in message
...

"NOYB" wrote in message
link.net...
Thank you, Madam Speaker. You're doing a bang-up job.

The Great Oil Robbery

By Dave Lindorff
Created May 8 2007 - 10:12am

In case you're wondering why crude oil prices are down from last year,
hanging around at about $60 a barrel, while gasoline prices have soared
past
$3.10/gallon nationwide, just check out the latest profit reports from the
oil companies. They are at record levels.

The answer for this seeming contradiction is simple: Americans are being
robbed blind by the oil industry.

Sure, the oil companies, and their PR and lobbying agency, the American
Petroleum Institute, will give you all kinds of reasons for higher
gasoline
prices at a time of falling crude prices: problems at two refineries in
Texas and Oklahoma, rising demand or whatever. But the real answer is that
there is simply no competitive market in this industry.

As Tim Hamilton, a researcher and petroleum industry consultant with the
Foundation for Taxpayer and Consumer Rights, observes, the oil companies
all
store their crude oil and refined gasoline in the same tanks, and all know
exactly how much inventory each other company has, so they don't have to
meet and collude on pricing in order to reap the huge rewards of
deliberate
supply constraints.

Says Hamilton, "Years ago, you had companies that would try to guess when
the other companies were going to have supply shortfalls of gasoline in
the
summer. They'd ramp up their own gasoline refining and then supply the
market at a lower price and eat their competitors' lunches, the same way
General Motors would do if Ford had a problem on its assembly line. But
today, no oil company would do that. They all benefit by keeping the
supplies tight."

Hamilton says that the oil industry has in practice conspired to limit
refining capacity, so that companies can keep pushing up the price of gas
artificially--only they've done this without ever having to meet in secret
and cut a deal, because they all have complete competitive information on
each others' inventories, internal pricing, and refinery capacity.

"There's no correlation any longer between crude oil prices and gasoline
prices," he insists. "Crude could drop to $10/barrel, and you could still
have gasoline go to $4/gallon. All the crude oil price does is set a floor
on gasoline prices."

As an indication of how much control the oil industry has over retail
gasoline prices, Hamilton points to a study he did, looking at the price
of
gas approaching Election Day. His results are truly disturbing.

The oil industry has been a solid backer of Republicans for many years,
giving 80-90 percent of its campaign contributions to GOP
candidates--particularly during the two Bush terms. What Hamilton
discovered
is that this support hasn't just been limited to campaign contributions.
In
fact, the oil industry appears to have clearly tried to minimize voter
anger
at Republicans late during the election cycle by pushing prices at the
pump
down just ahead of the voting. In the period 2000-2006, Hamilton found
that
each non-federal election year--2001, 2003 and 2005, gasoline prices
didn't
decline during the month of October, but each of the election years--2000,
2002, 2004 and 2006--they fell, with the most dramatic drop coming in
October 2006--a period when crude oil prices were rising sharply. Each
time,
gasoline prices rose again quickly right after the election was over.

"This is a set of coincidences you'd be hard-pressed to explain by
anything
but planning," says Hamilton. (And incidentally, it would be interesting,
when Congress gets those Karl Rove emails from the Republican Party and
the
White House mainframe computer, to see if there are any to the American
Petroleum Institute.)

The whole situation makes a joke of Bush proposals for opening up the
Alaskan North Slope to more oil exploration, or for Republican calls for
an
easing up on environmental regulations for new refinery construction. Says
Hamilton, "The price of oil produced in Alaska will be set in Saudi
Arabia,
and any new supply of crude from Alaska won't affect American gasoline
prices in the slightest. And as for new refineries, why would any oil
company want to spent $1 billon or more to add refinery capacity so they
could get less money for the gasoline they're selling? There isn't enough
money in the federal treasury to subsidize the building of new refinery
capacity in America."

The irony here is that it is higher prices for gasoline that might
eventually convince Americans to use less gasoline, and to reduce the
production of greenhouse gasses. But where those higher prices in Europe
come in the form of taxes, which can then be used to subsidize public
transportation or retirement and healthcare programs, in the U.S. the
higher
prices simply go to the bottom line of the oil companies, and into the
pockets of oil company shareholders, leaving public transit, retirement
and
healthcare programs under funded, and leaving lower-income workers stuck
with higher bills to get themselves to and from work in their cars.

Until the public recognizes that the illusion of competition carefully
maintained by the oil industry and its backers in the government is just
that--an illusion--this astounding rip-off will continue.

Until this mess is finally straightened out, if ever, buy oil company stock.

The cost of boating just went up. Gas hits all-time high.
 

On Wed, 9 May 2007 17:28:11 -0400, "John" wrote:

"There's no correlation any longer between crude oil prices and gasoline
prices," he insists. "Crude could drop to $10/barrel, and you could still
have gasoline go to $4/gallon. All the crude oil price does is set a floor
on gasoline prices."

Nonsense.

The cost of boating just went up. Gas hits all-time high.
 

"thunder" wrote in message

General
Motors, for instance, has been expanding it's operations in Canada, while
shrinking them here. Want to guess the reason?

I know you want to claim the answer is "health insurance"...but the real
answer is "unions".

Once GM and Ford and Chrysler shut their factories here, and move them
abroad, they'll be out from under the unions. And then, 10 years from now,
you can bet that they'll open new union-free operations stateside again.

The cost of boating just went up. Gas hits all-time high.
 

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...

On Wed, 09 May 2007 16:31:06 +0000, NOYB wrote:


85% of this country is getting along just fine with the health insurance
that they have,
\

bull****.

How's your health insurance?

The cost of boating just went up. Gas hits all-time high.
 

On Wed, 09 May 2007 22:39:21 -0400, Wayne.B
wrote:

On Wed, 9 May 2007 17:28:11 -0400, "John" wrote:

"There's no correlation any longer between crude oil prices and gasoline
prices," he insists. "Crude could drop to $10/barrel, and you could still
have gasoline go to $4/gallon. All the crude oil price does is set a floor
on gasoline prices."

Nonsense.

Never argue with somebody who doesn't understand the oil/gas spread.

I once entered into an discussion with somebody who wanted to boycott
Exxon Mobile because of excess profits. I tried to explain that a
boycott of Exxon Mobile wouldn't do anything because of the way gas
pricing is structured and how all the major retailers sell gas to each
other all the time.

Also couldn't get him to understand this one simple fact - that demand
decrease (boycott) for one leads to an increase in price for the
others becasue while demand goes down for one retailer, demand goes up
for others supplying the same product.

Just didn't get it.

Simple economics is beyond the ken of most folks.

The cost of boating just went up. Gas hits all-time high.
 

On Thu, 10 May 2007 04:56:14 +0000, NOYB wrote:

"thunder" wrote in message

General
Motors, for instance, has been expanding it's operations in Canada,
while shrinking them here. Want to guess the reason?

I know you want to claim the answer is "health insurance"...but the real
answer is "unions".

Once GM and Ford and Chrysler shut their factories here, and move them
abroad, they'll be out from under the unions. And then, 10 years from
now, you can bet that they'll open new union-free operations stateside
again.

Come on, NOYB, we were talking about Canada. Your union excuse doesn't
fly. Ever hear of the Canadian Auto Workers? They split from the UAW
because they are more militant, and didn't like the UAW's give-backs.

Oh, and just so you don't think I'm making this up, Google Rick Wagoner.
He is the one who said health care costs are wrecking the US economy.

The cost of boating just went up. Gas hits all-time high.
 

"NOYB" wrote in message
link.net...

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...

On Wed, 09 May 2007 16:31:06 +0000, NOYB wrote:


85% of this country is getting along just fine with the health
insurance
that they have,
\

bull****.

How's your health insurance?



Perhaps you can explain why, in some states, we can no longer get what was
once called major medical insurance. Let the customer pay all the cheap
stuff (doctor's visits), and the insurance is for the horror shows (car
accidents). I think the key word is "some states". Why the discrepancies?

The cost of boating just went up. Gas hits all-time high.
 

"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message
...


Perhaps you can explain why, in some states, we can no longer get what was
once called major medical insurance. Let the customer pay all the cheap
stuff (doctor's visits), and the insurance is for the horror shows (car
accidents). I think the key word is "some states". Why the discrepancies?


I don't know about *all* states, but you can still get it in some.

The reason major medical policies disappeared is due to consumer demand for
the HMOs. When HMOs started becoming popular in the late 70's, early 80's
employees covered by company health insurance wanted them because they only
had to pay a small contribution for each doctor visit. Companies, in order
to stay competitive in benefits to attract and keep employees were forced to
switch to the HMO plans. I have personal experience with this.

I've ranted before about this, including an analysis I did a few years back
where I determined that it would be less expensive for the company and the
employees if we went back to a major medical plan and the company simply
paid for the employee's and their family's regular doctor visits for
checkups or for little Johnny's runny nose.

Eisboch

The cost of boating just went up. Gas hits all-time high.
 

"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message
...


Perhaps you can explain why, in some states, we can no longer get what
was once called major medical insurance. Let the customer pay all the
cheap stuff (doctor's visits), and the insurance is for the horror shows
(car accidents). I think the key word is "some states". Why the
discrepancies?


I don't know about *all* states, but you can still get it in some.



BTW ... the only companies (that I know of) here in MA that still offer a
major medical plan are those big enough to self-insure rather than
participate in a group plan. The last I knew, small companies (fewer than
50 or 100 employees .... I forget) have to have 100 percent participation in
whatever group plan they subscribe to. It makes it tough if a prospective
new and desirable employee's primary care physician is not in the company's
particular plan.

Eisboch

The cost of boating just went up. Gas hits all-time high.
 

"RCE" wrote in message
...

"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message
...


Perhaps you can explain why, in some states, we can no longer get what
was once called major medical insurance. Let the customer pay all the
cheap stuff (doctor's visits), and the insurance is for the horror shows
(car accidents). I think the key word is "some states". Why the
discrepancies?


I don't know about *all* states, but you can still get it in some.

The reason major medical policies disappeared is due to consumer demand
for the HMOs. When HMOs started becoming popular in the late 70's, early
80's employees covered by company health insurance wanted them because
they only had to pay a small contribution for each doctor visit.
Companies, in order to stay competitive in benefits to attract and keep
employees were forced to switch to the HMO plans. I have personal
experience with this.

I've ranted before about this, including an analysis I did a few years
back where I determined that it would be less expensive for the company
and the employees if we went back to a major medical plan and the company
simply paid for the employee's and their family's regular doctor visits
for checkups or for little Johnny's runny nose.

Eisboch


On an individual basis, your last paragraph is certainly true for me. My
COBRA advantage will end soon, and my premiums will jump from $340-ish to
$650 per month. My employer will cover the expense because it's cheaper for
them to do that than to put me on their plan (for various complicated
reasons not important here). But still, it's crazy, to anyone with a
penchant for budgets. I live in a relatively cheap place, in terms of
doctor's office visits. My internest charges $60. I see a specialist twice a
year, who charges under $100. Sure, I could get very sick, I could be in a
car accident. But....cripes...I have a quarter mil of life insurance that
costs a fraction of these rates. It's all just math.

The cost of boating just went up. Gas hits all-time high.
 

"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message
...


On an individual basis, your last paragraph is certainly true for me. My
COBRA advantage will end soon, and my premiums will jump from $340-ish to
$650 per month. My employer will cover the expense because it's cheaper
for them to do that than to put me on their plan (for various complicated
reasons not important here). But still, it's crazy, to anyone with a
penchant for budgets. I live in a relatively cheap place, in terms of
doctor's office visits. My internest charges $60. I see a specialist twice
a year, who charges under $100. Sure, I could get very sick, I could be in
a car accident. But....cripes...I have a quarter mil of life insurance
that costs a fraction of these rates. It's all just math.

Obviously, the results of my analysis indicated that the bulk of regular,
non-catastrophic doctor visit costs were by those employees with infants and
small kids. They tend to visit the doctor regularly for check-ups and all
the normal kid ailments. Even still, it would have been cheaper for the
company to pay 100 percent for a Major Medical family plan and then pay for
the regular doctor visits than to pay 75 percent (employees paid the other
25 percent) of the monthly premiums for a HMO family plan.

Eisboch

The cost of boating just went up. Gas hits all-time high.
 

"RCE" wrote in message
...

"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message
...


On an individual basis, your last paragraph is certainly true for me. My
COBRA advantage will end soon, and my premiums will jump from $340-ish to
$650 per month. My employer will cover the expense because it's cheaper
for them to do that than to put me on their plan (for various complicated
reasons not important here). But still, it's crazy, to anyone with a
penchant for budgets. I live in a relatively cheap place, in terms of
doctor's office visits. My internest charges $60. I see a specialist
twice a year, who charges under $100. Sure, I could get very sick, I
could be in a car accident. But....cripes...I have a quarter mil of life
insurance that costs a fraction of these rates. It's all just math.

Obviously, the results of my analysis indicated that the bulk of regular,
non-catastrophic doctor visit costs were by those employees with infants
and small kids. They tend to visit the doctor regularly for check-ups and
all the normal kid ailments. Even still, it would have been cheaper for
the company to pay 100 percent for a Major Medical family plan and then
pay for the regular doctor visits than to pay 75 percent (employees paid
the other 25 percent) of the monthly premiums for a HMO family plan.

Eisboch


Exactly. I wonder why the HMO thing goes unquestioned in some companies.
Hell - self insure for some of these costs. Stick the money in a series of
rolling CDs or high rated bonds.

I don't recall where I recently read this, but Starbucks' biggest vendor
(from whom it purchases goods or services) is not a coffee bean supplier.
It's Blue Cross/Blue Shield.

The cost of boating just went up. Gas hits all-time high.
 

"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message
...
"NOYB" wrote in message
link.net...

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...

On Wed, 09 May 2007 16:31:06 +0000, NOYB wrote:


85% of this country is getting along just fine with the health
insurance
that they have,
\

bull****.

How's your health insurance?



Perhaps you can explain why, in some states, we can no longer get what was
once called major medical insurance. Let the customer pay all the cheap
stuff (doctor's visits), and the insurance is for the horror shows (car
accidents). I think the key word is "some states". Why the discrepancies?

Two reasons:

1) McCarran-Ferguson Act.


2) the Democrats filibustered a vote on Association Health Plans that would
have allowed small businesses to purchase health insurance for its employees
across state lines through their national association. The plans would have
been uniform from to state to state.

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdoc.cfm?index=...e=0&sequence=0

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill...&bill=h109-525

The cost of boating just went up. Gas hits all-time high.
 

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
NOYB wrote:
"thunder" wrote in message

General
Motors, for instance, has been expanding it's operations in Canada,
while
shrinking them here. Want to guess the reason?

I know you want to claim the answer is "health insurance"...but the real
answer is "unions".

Once GM and Ford and Chrysler shut their factories here, and move them
abroad, they'll be out from under the unions. And then, 10 years from
now, you can bet that they'll open new union-free operations stateside
again.







The world, finally, is unionizing. Within a few generations, there will be
no place for irresponsible corporations to hide. I'm looking forward to
the end in 2009 of corporate rule in this country and, of course,
nationalization of the dentistry business.

Hehehe. Nationalized dentistry, eh? I'll become a fishing guide.

The cost of boating just went up. Gas hits all-time high.
 

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...

That means that everyone in the country pays for healthcare through their
taxes, and everyone in the country gets healthcare.

What is wrong with:
"Everyone pays for the health insurance plan that they choose, and everyone
gets healthcare."


You have to buy homeowner's insurance before you get a mortgage. You have
to buy auto insurance before you drive a car.

Why not require everybody to purchase health insurance? The state can
subsidize those without the means to buy insurance by using the money that
they currently pay to hospital ER's to treat indigents.

The cost of boating just went up. Gas hits all-time high.
 

"NOYB" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...

That means that everyone in the country pays for healthcare through their
taxes, and everyone in the country gets healthcare.

What is wrong with:
"Everyone pays for the health insurance plan that they choose, and
everyone gets healthcare."


There's nothing theoretically wrong with that, except that for a family of
four in NY, the going price is $700 to $1000 per month, and if you're above
a certain income level, there's nothing cheaper. It's $700, or nothing. You
can be above the income level to qualify for the state's cheaper plan, but
still be unable to afford the $700.

The other problem, at least for me, is the math. Let's say you buy health
insurance because you're afraid of having to deal with a worst case
situation, like cancer. Could the bills total a quarter of a million dollars
for that illness? More, maybe? So, I pay $600 per month (single person) for
health coverage to deal with that eventuality - let's call it a quarter
million, even though I don't know if that's accurate. At the same time, I
pay about $100 a month for life insurance with the same benefit - a quarter
million.

What's wrong here?

The cost of boating just went up. Gas hits all-time high.
 

NOYB wrote:
"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
NOYB wrote:
"thunder" wrote in message

General
Motors, for instance, has been expanding it's operations in Canada,
while
shrinking them here. Want to guess the reason?
I know you want to claim the answer is "health insurance"...but the real
answer is "unions".

Once GM and Ford and Chrysler shut their factories here, and move them
abroad, they'll be out from under the unions. And then, 10 years from
now, you can bet that they'll open new union-free operations stateside
again.






The world, finally, is unionizing. Within a few generations, there will be
no place for irresponsible corporations to hide. I'm looking forward to
the end in 2009 of corporate rule in this country and, of course,
nationalization of the dentistry business.

Hehehe. Nationalized dentistry, eh? I'll become a fishing guide.


Canada did have a problem with their doctors taking disability when they
were nationalized. Drs could make more money on disability then they
could working.

The cost of boating just went up. Gas hits all-time high.
 

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"NOYB" wrote in message
ink.net...
"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...

That means that everyone in the country pays for healthcare through
their taxes, and everyone in the country gets healthcare.
What is wrong with:
"Everyone pays for the health insurance plan that thyey choose, and
everyone gets healthcare."


There's nothing theoretically wrong with that, except that for a family
of four in NY, the going price is $700 to $1000 per month, and if you're
above a certain income level, there's nothing cheaper. It's $700, or
nothing. You can be above the income level to qualify for the state's
cheaper plan, but still be unable to afford the $700.

The other problem, at least for me, is the math. Let's say you buy health
insurance because you're afraid of having to deal with a worst case
situation, like cancer. Could the bills total a quarter of a million
dollars for that illness? More, maybe? So, I pay $600 per month (single
person) for health coverage to deal with that eventuality - let's call it
a quarter million, even though I don't know if that's accurate. At the
same time, I pay about $100 a month for life insurance with the same
benefit - a quarter million.

What's wrong here?

Life insurance pays your inheritors when you die, unless you have whole
life.

Health insurance covers your bills, assuming you survive.


Common factor: The insurer has actuarial tables which theoretically provide
guidance for guessing the following:

- If a person will die
- If a house will burn down
- If a person will run up a ton of medical bills

Common factor: Insurer pays out X amount of benefits, but the premiums for
those three categories are vastly different. Why?

The cost of boating just went up. Gas hits all-time high.
 

"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message
...
"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"NOYB" wrote in message
ink.net...
"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...

That means that everyone in the country pays for healthcare through
their taxes, and everyone in the country gets healthcare.
What is wrong with:
"Everyone pays for the health insurance plan that thyey choose, and
everyone gets healthcare."


There's nothing theoretically wrong with that, except that for a family
of four in NY, the going price is $700 to $1000 per month, and if you're
above a certain income level, there's nothing cheaper. It's $700, or
nothing. You can be above the income level to qualify for the state's
cheaper plan, but still be unable to afford the $700.

The other problem, at least for me, is the math. Let's say you buy
health insurance because you're afraid of having to deal with a worst
case situation, like cancer. Could the bills total a quarter of a
million dollars for that illness? More, maybe? So, I pay $600 per month
(single person) for health coverage to deal with that eventuality -
let's call it a quarter million, even though I don't know if that's
accurate. At the same time, I pay about $100 a month for life insurance
with the same benefit - a quarter million.

What's wrong here?

Life insurance pays your inheritors when you die, unless you have whole
life.

Health insurance covers your bills, assuming you survive.


Common factor: The insurer has actuarial tables which theoretically
provide guidance for guessing the following:

- If a person will die
- If a house will burn down
- If a person will run up a ton of medical bills

Common factor: Insurer pays out X amount of benefits, but the premiums for
those three categories are vastly different. Why?

That's a very interesting point you make.

I've never looked at that way but I'm sure the answer(s) will appear in this
forum.

I consider myself quite fortunate. Between Medicare A/B and supplemental
coverage (zero cost to me) as a retiree from my former employer I do quite
well.

Last year I had shoulder surgery which in total was close to $20K. My out
of pocket expense was about $1100.

The cost of boating just went up. Gas hits all-time high.
 

"John H." wrote in message
...
On Wed, 9 May 2007 17:28:11 -0400, "John" wrote:


"NOYB" wrote in message
thlink.net...
Thank you, Madam Speaker. You're doing a bang-up job.

The Great Oil Robbery

By Dave Lindorff
Created May 8 2007 - 10:12am

In case you're wondering why crude oil prices are down from last year,
hanging around at about $60 a barrel, while gasoline prices have soared
past
$3.10/gallon nationwide, just check out the latest profit reports from the
oil companies. They are at record levels.

The answer for this seeming contradiction is simple: Americans are being
robbed blind by the oil industry.

Should have gone nuclear ages ago.


How is nuclear power connected with our consumption of petroleum?

The cost of boating just went up. Gas hits all-time high.
 

JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"John H." wrote in message
...
On Wed, 9 May 2007 17:28:11 -0400, "John" wrote:

"NOYB" wrote in message
link.net...
Thank you, Madam Speaker. You're doing a bang-up job.

The Great Oil Robbery

By Dave Lindorff
Created May 8 2007 - 10:12am

In case you're wondering why crude oil prices are down from last year,
hanging around at about $60 a barrel, while gasoline prices have soared
past
$3.10/gallon nationwide, just check out the latest profit reports from the
oil companies. They are at record levels.

The answer for this seeming contradiction is simple: Americans are being
robbed blind by the oil industry.
Should have gone nuclear ages ago.


How is nuclear power connected with our consumption of petroleum?



We would use the cheap electricity generated to power our boats and cars. ;)

The cost of boating just went up. Gas hits all-time high.
 

"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message
...
"NOYB" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...

That means that everyone in the country pays for healthcare through their
taxes, and everyone in the country gets healthcare.

What is wrong with:
"Everyone pays for the health insurance plan that they choose, and
everyone gets healthcare."


There's nothing theoretically wrong with that, except that for a family of
four in NY, the going price is $700 to $1000 per month, and if you're
above a certain income level, there's nothing cheaper. It's $700, or
nothing. You can be above the income level to qualify for the state's
cheaper plan, but still be unable to afford the $700.

The other problem, at least for me, is the math. Let's say you buy health
insurance because you're afraid of having to deal with a worst case
situation, like cancer. Could the bills total a quarter of a million
dollars for that illness? More, maybe? So, I pay $600 per month (single
person) for health coverage to deal with that eventuality - let's call it
a quarter million, even though I don't know if that's accurate. At the
same time, I pay about $100 a month for life insurance with the same
benefit - a quarter million.

What's wrong here?

I'm not an actuary, but I would guess that it's more likely that in the next
10 years you'll get a major illness (or several) than die. Plus, you can
only die once.

The cost of boating just went up. Gas hits all-time high.
 

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"NOYB" wrote in message
ink.net...
"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...

That means that everyone in the country pays for healthcare through
their taxes, and everyone in the country gets healthcare.
What is wrong with:
"Everyone pays for the health insurance plan that thyey choose, and
everyone gets healthcare."


There's nothing theoretically wrong with that, except that for a family
of four in NY, the going price is $700 to $1000 per month, and if you're
above a certain income level, there's nothing cheaper. It's $700, or
nothing. You can be above the income level to qualify for the state's
cheaper plan, but still be unable to afford the $700.

The other problem, at least for me, is the math. Let's say you buy health
insurance because you're afraid of having to deal with a worst case
situation, like cancer. Could the bills total a quarter of a million
dollars for that illness? More, maybe? So, I pay $600 per month (single
person) for health coverage to deal with that eventuality - let's call it
a quarter million, even though I don't know if that's accurate. At the
same time, I pay about $100 a month for life insurance with the same
benefit - a quarter million.

What's wrong here?

Life insurance pays your inheritors when you die, unless you have whole
life.

Health insurance covers your bills, assuming you survive.


Life insurance is really a sucker's bet. The insurance company is betting
that you will live...and you're betting that you'll die.