 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / Driving, Maintenance, Tuning / RVs / April 2006Gas War
The ever climbing gas prices are forcing many of us with RVs to park our rigs. We can not stop buying gas for our every day needs, but we can force a GAS WAR to drive down prices. How you say; by boycotting the largest oil companies (Exxon, Mobil). Just think of it, if millions of us stop buying gas from Exxon, what do you think they would do? As their sales dropped of dramatically, they would be forced to lower prices in order to get their customers back. What do you say? BOYCOTT EXXON NOW, and see what happens in a week or two!!!! >>The ever climbing gas prices are forcing many of us with RVs to park our rigs.<< Keep this statement in mind when someone says that the high price of gas is some kind of conspiracy between gas companies. The gas companies make money by taking crude oil and making gas from it. They would rather have crude oil at $10.00 per barrel so everyone was driving their gass-guzzling cars, trucks, RV's, ect all over the country. If the high prices of gas keeps people from driving, they won't need as much gas and the gas companies will see less profit.  SignatureJerryD(upstateNY) >>> The ever climbing gas prices are forcing many of us with RVs to park our > rigs.<< [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > If the high prices of gas keeps people from driving, they won't need as much > gas and the gas companies will see less profit. And since Exxon makes about 7 cents a gallon (up from 5 cents - outrageous profit) the best they could do is lower the price a couple pennies. Try boycotting Mexico and Canada who supply most of our Crude oil and they will just send it all to China and India whose consumption has doubled. That's why their profits are setting records, and CEO's take $400M in bonuses > >>> The ever climbing gas prices are forcing many of us with RVs to park our > > rigs.<< [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > oil and they will just send it all to China and India whose consumption > has doubled. The pay for all CEO's has gotten out of hand lately. Not just oil companies but Starbuck's, Cable Companies, etc. Their pay in proportion to profit is tiny but not a good excuse. Argument is also that they have to pay to get talent. BS. There are more than enough talented people willing to take those jobs for a lot less. I just read somewhere that CEO compensation is dropping for a change. Stockholders are beginning to vote for less compensation instead of checking the box titled "Management recommends". > That's why their profits are setting records, and CEO's take $400M in > bonuses [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] >> oil and they will just send it all to China and India whose consumption >> has doubled. >>That's why their profits are setting records, and CEO's take $400M in bonuses. << Typical class envy leftie remark. They are setting record profits because they are selling record numbers of gallons of gas. More gallons = more profit. And what difference does it make to you, how much a successful CEO makes ? The gas company makes 7¢ a gallon and the government makes 78¢ per gallon and you are complaining about the gas companies. SignatureJerryD(upstateNY) YOU GOT IT!!! > >>The ever climbing gas prices are forcing many of us with RVs to park our > rigs.<< [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > If the high prices of gas keeps people from driving, they won't need as much > gas and the gas companies will see less profit. > The ever climbing gas prices are forcing many of us with RVs to park our > rigs. We can not stop buying gas for our every day needs, but we can force [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > customers back. What do you say? BOYCOTT EXXON NOW, and see what happens > in a week or two!!!! Boycotting a single company will have no effect on gas prices. The only way to lower the cost is to lower demand market wide. Stop buying it period! >> The ever climbing gas prices are forcing many of us with RVs to park our >> rigs. We can not stop buying gas for our every day needs, but we can [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > way to lower the cost is to lower demand market wide. Stop buying it > period! Even that won't work because of the many other products produced from petroleum, with plastics being a big example. Gasoline is only part of what oil is used for. SignatureJon JPinOH Only the bigiest part!!! > >> The ever climbing gas prices are forcing many of us with RVs to park our > >> rigs. We can not stop buying gas for our every day needs, but we can [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > petroleum, with plastics being a big example. Gasoline is only part of what > oil is used for. You do not get it, stop buying Exxon and see if they do not lower prices... The consumer can force a gas war!! > > The ever climbing gas prices are forcing many of us with RVs to park our > > rigs. We can not stop buying gas for our every day needs, but we can force [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > way to lower the cost is to lower demand market wide. Stop buying it > period! I see where <BEVANS2@swfla.rr.com> yelled: >You do not get it, stop buying Exxon and see if they do not lower prices... >The consumer can force a gas war!! It is extremely difficult to respond to this "thinking" without appropriate insult, but I'm feeling mellow and will try: Think (!) through your idea for a moment, and if you can, imagine that the entire nation of China and fully half if US buyers quit buying from Exxon. [You MUST have a vivid imagination to visualize that, but you obviously have one of those already!) What would happen? Well, Exxon would encounter a major upset in their operations, with the result that their costs per gallon would rise. Competitors would experience an abrupt increase in demand, requiring them to take costly steps to cope, raising their costs as well. Bottom line, consumers would be, in effect, screwing themselves. It is true that the old "law of supply and demand" influences prices. But it bites many ways. Reducing demand (boycotting a product) only drives the price down under certain circumstances. If people like you had their way, and _everyone_ in the entire world reduced their intake of petroleum products by 50% (a pipe dream if there ever was one!) the costs per gallon would actually rise a LOT. Why? Because the fixed costs of production, transportation, refining, distribution and retailing would be nearly the same, with the result that the price of a gallon would include much higher costs. Ancient proverb, Will version: Lord, give me the ambition to change things I can influence, the patience to accept what I can't change, and the brains to know that fuel prices are one of the things I cannot change by trying to strangle the existing fuel supply system. Will Sill "A great many people think they are thinking when they are merely rearranging their prejudices." William James >>>stop buying gas from Exxon, what do you think they would do? HERE is what I think they would do...... IF Exxon and any others do not sell their allotments of crude/gas to the public, they will just sell the crude options to other companies. That's just another link in the distribution chain and the prices will go UP ! Exxon also owns the bulk of of the refineries and the refining capacity in the country. If Exxon is not refining crude for themselves, they will only sell their excess refining capacity to the other oil companies who are buying Exxons former allotments of crude. That's just another link in the distribution chain and the prices will go UP ! IF neither of the above happen, China and India will be happy to buy the excess crude as well as oil futures for another 25 years. It's Basic Economics. Crude and ultimately gasoline are COMMODITIES ! They follow the rules of the futures market, NOT the emotions of people pissing and moaning about the "Big Bad Oil Companies". This is ABSOLUTE BULLCRAP ! Whoever thought this up and whomever thinks that it'll actually work has chicken feathers for brains. If anybody really wants to spend less on gas, they should drive less, buy a more fuel efficient vehicle, and/or press their legislators to lower the 26% TAX that is currently on every gallon of gasoline (26% x $3.00= 78cents). >>>>stop buying gas from Exxon, what do you think they would do? > [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] >more fuel efficient vehicle, and/or press their legislators to lower the 26% >TAX that is currently on every gallon of gasoline (26% x $3.00= 78cents). I agree except for the last part. I think legislators should immediately add a $1.00/gal tax on all gasoline to force people to conserve and to offset the cost of the war in the middle east. For anyone interested in the dynamics of gasoline costs, here's a pretty good article: http://money.howstuffworks.com/gas-price.htm >>>>>stop buying gas from Exxon, what do you think they would do? >> [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > > A liberal that doesn't have to commute to work but supports the war. I guess you figure that makes you middle of the road. If they want to create more revenue rescind the tax break to Bush's constitutency. Bush is not Conservative but encompases a sort of liberalism from a Corporate viewpoint in a perverse sort of way. We spent more on fruel that our house payment, food, and credit cards this month. Thoughts of a midddle class prosperity are fast evaporating. It's pretty hard to conserve when you live 30 miles from a job and there is no mass transit. >>>>>>stop buying gas from Exxon, what do you think they would do? >>> [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] >> >> A liberal that doesn't have to commute to work but supports the war. My wife and I both work, thank-you. Also, I have no illusions as to the underlying reasons we are fighting in the middle east. While the US is certainly attempting to contain Islamic fascism, it is also trying to protect oil supplies needed by all developed countries- not just us. I >guess you figure that makes you middle of the road. If they want to >create more revenue rescind the tax break to Bush's constitutency. Bush >is not Conservative but encompases a sort of liberalism from a Corporate >viewpoint in a perverse sort of way. Bush rant noted. My recommendation for a $1.00 tax was not to raise revenue but to force conservation. >We spent more on fruel that our house payment, food, and credit cards >this month. Thoughts of a midddle class prosperity are fast evaporating. The world is changing - learn to adapt, and stop whining. The peace and prosperity you've enjoyed all your life was won by your parents and grandparents blood and sweat. It's time for pampered Americans to grow a backbone. >It's pretty hard to conserve when you live 30 miles from a job and there >is no mass transit. Not really. Get creative. http://www.extreme-scooters.com/metroSport4StrokeTURBO.htm How about getting politicians the cut the gas tax and stop requiring dumbass additives like ethanol that create artificial shortages while gas is reformulated every spring and fall. If we have to have oxidant additives pick ONE formula for the whole country and not let every states corrupt politicos set different standards. Corn state politicians have turned this into a huge boondoggle. At least they could let cheap sugar in for making ethanol as is done in South America but Nooo! the sugar lobby won't allow that. >>>>>>>stop buying gas from Exxon, what do you think they would do? >>>> [quoted text clipped - 79 lines] > ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption > =---- >How about getting politicians the cut the gas tax Lower taxes would only encourage more consupmtion and exacerbate the problem, thus my recommendation for a $1.00 tax per gallon. and stop requiring dumbass >additives like ethanol that create artificial shortages while gas is >reformulated every spring and fall. If we have to have oxidant additives [quoted text clipped - 87 lines] >> ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption >> =---- >> How about getting politicians the cut the gas tax > > Lower taxes would only encourage more consupmtion and exacerbate the > problem, thus my recommendation for a $1.00 tax per gallon. Don't stop there. In Europe the average tax is 60% of the price of gas. In Britain it is 75% (Each year raising 5% above inflation). Result: Average light duty vehicle mileage in the U.S. is 21.6 mpg. In Europe it is 32.1 mpg. >>> How about getting politicians the cut the gas tax >> [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >Average light duty vehicle mileage in the U.S. is 21.6 mpg. In Europe >it is 32.1 mpg. I lived in Germany in the 70's, and gas prices then were around $2.50 gal. I drove a Beetle that got 35mpg and car pooled whenever I could. When I had no money for gas, I used my moped which got 100mpg. You do what you have to do to adapt. Americans are looking particularly ugly these days to the rest of the world with their attitude that cheap gas is a birthright, and auto manufacturers are looking stupid as ever as they will soon repeat the mistakes made after the 70's oil embargo. Toyota and Honda will again beat GM and Ford to market with economy cars that are economical and reliable. The global marketplace will ultimately determine the price of energy, and there's really nothing the government can do in the short run except force Americans to do what they should be doing on their own, e.g., conserving energy by driving economical cars and driving less. In the long run, China and India will seemingly lead the way to hydrogen and other alternative fuels as American oil and auto companies stubbornly cling to obsolete paradigms. >>Lower taxes would only encourage more consupmtion and exacerbate the problem, thus my recommendation for a $1.00 tax per gallon.<< The left's answer to everything.........raise taxes. SignatureJerryD(upstateNY) >>> Lower taxes would only encourage more consupmtion and exacerbate the > problem, thus my recommendation for a $1.00 tax per gallon.<< > > The left's answer to everything.........raise taxes. Unfortunately, both sides seem to want to spend a lot of money. At some point you do need to pay for the things you buy on credit. >>>> Lower taxes would only encourage more consupmtion and exacerbate the >> problem, thus my recommendation for a $1.00 tax per gallon.<< [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >Unfortunately, both sides seem to want to spend a lot of money. >At some point you do need to pay for the things you buy on credit. Indeed this is hardly a left/right issue but one of national security. If the costs of the U.S. military, which keeps the shipping lanes open and protects governments which supply oil to the world, were factored into every gallon, we certainly see a different price structure. >>>>> Lower taxes would only encourage more consupmtion and exacerbate >>>>> the [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > and protects governments which supply oil to the world, were factored > into every gallon, we certainly see a different price structure. The actual cost of our gasoline and diesel is probably a lot closer to what the Europeans are paying when you factor in the amount of money spent on our military in an effort to see that the oil continues to flow. We have fought other wars in the past to prevent another country from trying to take over a major oil producing area and it will certainly continue for a long time. >>>Indeed this is hardly a left/right issue but one of national security.<<< I have to disagree. Which party hasn't allowed a new refinery to be built since about 1972 ? Which party won't let us drill for oil in Alaska ? Which party would let any new off-shore drilling ? Here's a hint........It's the same party that hasn't allowed any new nuclear power plants to be built. Another hint.....It's the same party that wants to bring the oil companies before Congress so they can grill them as to why they are gouging the public. (by making 7¢ per gallon of gas, while the government is getting 78¢ per gallon) SignatureJerryD(upstateNY) >>>> Indeed this is hardly a left/right issue but one of national >>>> security.<<< [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > gouging the public. (by making 7¢ per gallon of gas, while the > government is getting 78¢ per gallon) It is the extreme amount of regulations at both the state and federal level that have made it difficult to justify building a new refinery or nuclear power plant. The refineries have increased capacities at existing refineries because it is easier to do that than it is to build a new one. You can bet that a new refinery would get built if one of the oil companies felt that they had to have one. These regulation came into being under both Democrats and Republicans so neither party is blameless. >>>>> Indeed this is hardly a left/right issue but one of national >>>>> security.<<< [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] >a new refinery would get built if one of the oil companies felt >that they had to have one. Exactly. The primary reason there have been no new refineries for the past three decades is because the oil companies don't want them. They are more than content to reap windfall profits when they can and excellent profits at other times. The last thing the oil companies want is excess capacity. They control production for maximum profits, just as any good corporation should do. But they are monopolies, and the government should regulate them as such. However, there's the other part of the problem. We have utterly corrupt politicians on both sides of the aisle who take money from oil and auto lobbyists to stay in office and benefit their party. Working for the good of the country or the people seems to be an outdated concept. >These regulation came into being under both Democrats and >Republicans so neither party is blameless. >>>>>> Indeed this is hardly a left/right issue but one of national >>>>>> security.<<< [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] >>These regulation came into being under both Democrats and >>Republicans so neither party is blameless. Hi, It's not so much that the oil companies don't want any new refineries it's because it is to hard to find land, get permits (NIMBY) and the cost of a new refinery never justified building new ones because of the profit margins involved. What has been happening is that older less efficient refineries and one's with no space to expand have been closed and the more efficient ones with expansion have been upgraded. We have less refineries now then 20 years ago but still produce more product then ever. With oil prices as high as they are there are probably some companies now looking at building new refineries in the USA, maybe. A lot of gasoline and diesel comes from outside this country from new refineries that have been built by companies who didn't have all the rules and regulations to follow like in the USA. But it takes from 8 - 12 years for one to be built and come online. You should check out the profit margins for the different parts of a major oil companies business. Standard Oil of yesterday was a monopoly the oil companies of today are not. There are not many new oil companies coming into existence because of the huge cost associated with starting one. There are some 470 + oil and gas companies world wide I wouldn't say that number makes oil and gas companies monopolies. You start regulating them here and you end up with gas lines like back in the 70's because they won't want to do business here when they can go anywhere else in the world. What is windfall profits? Are you saying that because the world wide price of a barrel of crude oil has gone up because of world wide demand for the stuff that oil companies should lower their prices so you can have $1.50 or $2.00 per gallon gas? So when oil becomes more plentiful the oil companies should then raise their prices? The biggest problem is that folks in this country think its a right for them to have cheap fuel. It's not and now that the rest of the world is catching up to us we are starting to find that out. We are not energy self sufficient anymore. We have to compete with the rest of the world for energy, that's a fact that's not going to change anytime soon. We have lots of options where we could get more energy from right here in the USA but it's either not cost effective yet or the technology hasn't been perfected yet. Government should be encouraging the development of new energy technologies. Otherwise they should keep their hands out of the pie and stop wasting their time by holding hearings on why companies are making profits. They know the answer. They spend more time trying to make themselves look good then in actually helping to come up with new energy technologies that would help everyone. You want to complain about a company complain about the local gas station that jacks up the price unnecessarily because they see the price of a barrel of oil going higher. That's price gouging and should not be tolerated. They get their tanks filled on Monday at X amount per gallon then jack up the price on Tuesday for the same fuel they already paid for on Monday. That's one reason fuel prices rise so fast and go down so slow. Take care and Happy Campin... SignatureRichA "We Get Too Soon Olde and Too Late Smart" > Exactly. The primary reason there have been no new refineries for the > past three decades is because the oil companies don't want them. Bull. Several companies have tried in vain for years to build new refineries here in Arizona. Politics has stopped them every time. Right now they are asking again but this time they may just succeed. Pressure is building on the liberals to loosen their grip on the very regulations they wrote decades ago. >> Exactly. The primary reason there have been no new refineries for the >> past three decades is because the oil companies don't want them. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >Pressure is building on the liberals to loosen their grip on the very >regulations they wrote decades ago. I heard yesterday that the permits are issued for the Mobile refinery. (Mobile is a small town just SW of Phoenix, not a gas company). Is this true? I think not but not sure. Dean >>>> Lower taxes would only encourage more consupmtion and exacerbate the >> problem, thus my recommendation for a $1.00 tax per gallon.<< [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >Unfortunately, both sides seem to want to spend a lot of money. >At some point you do need to pay for the things you buy on credit. Ya, like social security. If anyone under the age of 40 thinks they are going to get one frigginpenny from SS, they are crazy. When the number of people living off the government tit outnumber those paying the bill, this country will collapse in its own vomit! This will occur in the next 5 years or so. On Mon, 24 Apr 2006 21:30:45 GMT, "JerryD\(upstateNY\)" <jerry@righthere.com> wrote: >>>Lower taxes would only encourage more consupmtion and exacerbate the >problem, thus my recommendation for a $1.00 tax per gallon.<< > >The left's answer to everything.........raise taxes. Ah, name calling - the refuge for those with nothing to contribute. >>The left's answer to everything.........raise taxes.<< >Ah, name calling - the refuge for those with nothing to contribute.< I am not calling anyone names. I was just stating a fact that can be proven by 100's of examples. SignatureJerryD(upstateNY) On Tue, 25 Apr 2006 00:30:29 GMT, "JerryD\(upstateNY\)" <jerry@righthere.com> wrote: >>>The left's answer to everything.........raise taxes.<< >>Ah, name calling - the refuge for those with nothing to contribute.< > >I am not calling anyone names. You know nothing about me and decide I'm from the left - not that that's a bad thing, but it's false. >I was just stating a fact that can be proven by 100's of examples. So far you've only proven you don't have an in depth undertanding of the problems and that you can attach labels to people. > On Mon, 24 Apr 2006 21:30:45 GMT, "JerryD\(upstateNY\)" > <jerry@righthere.com> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Ah, name calling - the refuge for those with nothing to contribute. Name calling? Left? Why are those on the left so afraid of being called what they are? Since trashing the name liberal through their own actions they've decided to try to regroup and call themselves progressives. I'm right, and proud of it!. Boy, the oil companies have you just where they want you. Brain washed!!! > >>>stop buying gas from Exxon, what do you think they would do? > [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > more fuel efficient vehicle, and/or press their legislators to lower the 26% > TAX that is currently on every gallon of gasoline (26% x $3.00= 78cents). >Boy, the oil companies have you just where they want you. Brain washed!!! > >> >>>stop buying gas from Exxon, what do you think they would do? Hi, Do you know how much petrol (gasoline) costs per gallon in England? Take care and Happy Campin... SignatureRichA "We Get Too Soon Olde and Too Late Smart" >>Boy, the oil companies have you just where they want you. Brain washed!!! >> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Take care and Happy Campin... Don't care about England! I understand the rising ocean levels will wash them away anyhow, Not really. All I'm concerned about is our economy and Americans' economies. To hell with the merchant class of international thieves. >>>Boy, the oil companies have you just where they want you. Brain washed!!! >>> [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >All I'm concerned about is our economy and Americans' economies. To hell >with the merchant class of international thieves. Hi, And that is why you don't understand what is happening with the price of oil. You need to go to school and learn the facts about oil, it is an INTERNATIONAL commodity. Other countries use or non use greatly effect the price all over the world, along with other reasons of course. But one company, or one person isn't going to be able to lower the price of oil by itself or himself. Take care and Happy Campin... SignatureRichA "We Get Too Soon Olde and Too Late Smart" >>Do you know how much petrol (gasoline) costs per gallon in England?<< How much tax is there on a gallon of gas in England ? England uses that gas tax to pay for it's socialized medicine. SignatureJerryD(upstateNY) >>> Do you know how much petrol (gasoline) costs per gallon in England?<< > > How much tax is there on a gallon of gas in England ? > England uses that gas tax to pay for it's (sic) socialized medicine. Perhaps you would care to back that (grammatically incorrect) statement with a precis of the British budget. What you call "socialized medicine" is, in fact, universal health care. Any person who wishes and can afford to do so may, at his own choosing, opt out. I know; I have lived in the UK (Britain) and have been served by both approaches to medical care whilst there. Ken H >>>> Do you know how much petrol (gasoline) costs per gallon in England?<< >> [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > Ken H I don't know what you mean by "opt out". Everyone has their wages taxed according to their salary level. But everyone is allowed to go to pay for service clinics but still must pay for the National Health Service. Their service leaves something to be desired. Recently I was told the some of the following delays were typical: EKG: 9 months Dermatologist: 40 weeks for a consultation Stomach problems: 26 weeks for a consultation Heart Bypass: 3 years. Procedures using the latest (expensive) laser or robotic medical equipment: Except in exceptional cases, Forget it!! The knife is cheaper and "good enough". Their argument is that everyone gets the same level of care. > Their service leaves something to be desired. Recently I was told the > some of the following delays were typical: [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Stomach problems: 26 weeks for a consultation > Heart Bypass: 3 years. You'll get arguments saying no way! Some people get lucky and get better care than others, especially if you have money. I have a friend who's hospital 'room' was a bed sitting in the hallway for 3 weeks waiting for surgery. >> Their service leaves something to be desired. Recently I was told the >> some of the following delays were typical: [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > who's hospital 'room' was a bed sitting in the hallway for 3 weeks > waiting for surgery. I am getting strong arguments against it. I just read a report from a fellow who traveled from Inverness, Scotland to London for a pay for service operation. NHS didn't offer the laser version. Others are talking about all the hospitals that have been closed and destroyed. If they can't make a profit they have to close. But again, everyone gets treated equally (unless they go outside the system). I see where Rich256 <nospam@nospam.net> contributed some comments concerning some deceptive bafflegab from Ken Harrison, who wrote: >> What you call "socialized medicine" is, in fact, universal health care. >> Any person who wishes and can afford to do so may, at his own choosing, >> opt out. Rich: >I don't know what you mean by "opt out". Everyone has their wages taxed >according to their salary level. But everyone is allowed to go to pay >for service clinics but still must pay for the National Health Service. Ken seems to think there is a difference between socialized medicine and universal health care. The difference, if any, is not evident. Either way, you're guaranteed nothing except that you get to pay for mediocre care whether you need it or not. Will Sill The Curmudgeon of Sill Hill >>> What you call "socialized medicine" is, in fact, universal health care. >>> Any person who wishes and can afford to do so may, at his own choosing, [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > Either way, you're guaranteed nothing except that you get to pay for > mediocre care whether you need it or not. I've been pondering this since it was announced by the World Health Organization that the U.S. now rates around 32nd in the world for health care. We've slipped downwards, and badly. Friend at work need some hemorrhoid surgery. Guess what? He ended up going all the way to Korea paying $1700 U.S. for the surgery in one of the three "hemorrhoid hospitals" in Seoul, Korea. Surgery, doctor, and "six-day" stay was part of the $1700 price. Had no problem scheduling it, even from the U.S. side. It would have been far more than that in the U.S. for the same treatment. Had he been a citizen there, it would have been free with the same wait period. He said the equipment was far newer than what he had seen in the U.S. hospitals and doctors offices. Many drugs are formulated in foreign countries and Pfizer and others claim the patents in the U.S. Costs far less to buy overseas. Insurance has given the U.S. health profession a blank check. Now that they want checks on their expenditures, we will slide further down the scale in health care. I wouldn't be so fast to call other countries as having mediocre care without looking at the U.S. system. We are not all that great. B~ > I wouldn't be so fast to call other countries as having mediocre care > without looking at the U.S. system. We are not all that great. We have far better health care for more people than most. It's always possible to pick out single instances of someone having decent care elsewhere. Doesn't mean much. The average care is mediocre at best. Who is it that pays for most of the modern medical technology and R&D that the rest of the world uses? Many socialized countries are struggling to pay for it. The UK for instance is having tough times lately. All those socialized services costs keep going up. Corners are cut somewhere to pay for it all. In the US almost everyone has health care. The county hospitals and clinics do provide care for the poor. Almost every state has HCCC (Health Care Cost Containment) services for the poor. I know several on Arizonas service and the care they receive is decent. While not as good as it could be the health care in the USA is better than most despite your WHO claims. You need to look at how the WHO determines rates. Horrible health care for all is ranked high when it should not be. > Friend at work need some hemorrhoid surgery. Guess what? He ended up > going all the way to Korea paying $1700 U.S. for the surgery in one of [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > equipment was far newer than what he had seen in the U.S. hospitals > and doctors offices. As Artie Johnson used to say: "Verrrry Interestink!" Normally, Hemorrhoid Surgery is an office procedure: no waiting, same-day service and back to work the next day with everything covered by the insurance company. [BTDT] Your buddy must not have gotten "the word"! <G> >>Friend at work need some hemorrhoid surgery. Guess what? He ended up >>going all the way to Korea paying $1700 U.S. for the surgery in one of [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > Your buddy must not have gotten "the word"! <G> See a lot of errors or misleading comments here. First the state of the art level in the medical treatment area for the general population in Korea is far less than what is in The US. Hemorrhoid Surgery as an outpatient treatment is not the real thing. Just minor extractions and it can be very painful. Back to work is not the case in any level of treatment. This thread has become a real pain in the a.s. SignatureBILL P. Just Me & DOG > Normally, Hemorrhoid Surgery is an office procedure: no waiting, same-day > service and back to work the next day with everything covered by the > insurance company. [BTDT] He had the 'scopy done in the U.S. in a hospital as part of the colon screening, but the nurses advised him of going elsewhere to have the hemorrhoid surgery done. As he did his research, he said that they "could" damage his sphincter which may lead to "leakage" complications (I know about that as I just got home from visiting a "dementia" ward of a nursing home where those walking around had stuff in their pants (uck!). His being somewhat wary of that, since most operations carry their own complications with them, he opted for the specialized hemorrhoid hospitals they offer. The trip to Korea wasn't bad for the operation wasn't bad. They do put you in a room with 6 others rather than a two-person hospital room as in the U.S. They did have a lot more equipment specialized for the procedure over there than here (robotic). Fwiw, they do have far faster organ transplant operations than the average two year wait in the U.S. However, that is a whole morality issue since China controls the organ bank for most of the Asian countries. Drugs were far cheaper than U.S., but who doesn't know that since bringing lesser-priced drugs into the U.S. seems outlawed. I did find it interesting they have Hospice Hospitals over there. Ever hear of one of those in the U.S? Most we have are convalescent hospitals or nursing homes. I know we pay (out-of-pocket, no long-term care insurance) anywhere from $4500 to $6060 per month for our parents (each) to keep them in assisted living. No insurance on that, just the sale of their business is keeping them there. The only insurance coverage was for one month following a three-day stay in a hospital as a recovery option in one ($202 a day). But it is a one-time medi-care coverage. Good luck doing it again. Oh, good luck on hospice care, they do not allow calling for ambulance or a hospital call. It's pretty much end of the line coverage (state-run Medi-Cal) for 390 days. Nurse visit two days a week and availability of 5 day bathing and observation/companionship by student nurses or volunteers. Cancer chemo in U.S. is also interesting. Military personnel seem to get the best bags at $10K a pop. If you have normal insurance or none, you'll get the $25 bag. Any guess as to who may live longer? B~ >> Normally, Hemorrhoid Surgery is an office procedure: no waiting, same-day >> service and back to work the next day with everything covered by the [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > complications with them, he opted for the specialized hemorrhoid hospitals > they offer. Unless his case was far from simple, my statement stands: it's an "Office Procedure", fully covered by health insurance. > The trip to Korea wasn't bad for the operation wasn't bad. They do put > you in a room with 6 others rather than a two-person hospital room as in > the U.S. They did have a lot more equipment specialized for the procedure > over there than here (robotic). That takes care of the "metal content" issue. <grin> > Fwiw, they do have far faster organ transplant operations than the average > two year wait in the U.S. However, that is a whole morality issue since [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > hear of one of those in the U.S? Most we have are convalescent hospitals > or nursing homes. There are many hospices all over the country. > I know we pay (out-of-pocket, no long-term care insurance) anywhere from > $4500 to $6060 per month for our parents (each) to keep them in assisted [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > good luck on hospice care, they do not allow calling for ambulance or a > hospital call. I thought you said that there weren't any hospices.... > It's pretty much end of the line coverage (state-run Medi-Cal) for 390 > days. Nurse visit two days a week and availability of 5 day bathing and [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > the best bags at $10K a pop. If you have normal insurance or none, you'll > get the $25 bag. Any guess as to who may live longer? Nice rant: a few facts and a lot of vindictiveness. <grin> 1. Your buddy could have had his surgery performed locally, by a competent surgeon, without having to go elsewhere. That he chose to combine the surgery with a sight-seeing trip has no bearing upon the state of medical practice of either country. 2. Hospices have been popping up for decades - in no small part due to the Nursing Home Industry's generally apalling state. 3. Nursing Homes are, for the most part, places to park people: my wife worked in one for a couple of years and still tells the story of one woman's children who would call on the first of each month with the same question - "Is She Dead Yet?". Why, else, have the operators of the New Orleans nursing home - where the flooding killed most of the "residents" - not been charged with many counts of Murder? 4. The average Nursing Home is geared to milk Social Security and Medicare for every possible cent while the individual lives. When the individual dies, that frees up a bed for the next "meal ticket". 5. Assisted Living - a place where strangers do what, traditionally, is the duty of the children. The amount of money required varies with the location, conditions, etc. >>>Normally, Hemorrhoid Surgery is an office procedure: no waiting, same-day >>>service and back to work the next day with everything covered by the [quoted text clipped - 77 lines] > duty of the children. The amount of money required varies with the location, > conditions, etc. Ha! Ha! Ha!, now they got you ranting <snick> Like I said before this thread has turned in to a pain in the a.s. ;-) SignatureBILL P. Just Me & DOG >> Normally, Hemorrhoid Surgery is an office procedure: no waiting, same-day >> service and back to work the next day with everything covered by the [quoted text clipped - 38 lines] > > B~ As I see it there are two items in particular to account for lower prices in other countries. One is that foreign physicians do not have to pay up to $200,000 a year for malpractice insurance to keep trial lawyers rich. Other is that they are not required by law to treat people who can't pay (Even those there illegally - if they have such a problem). > As I see it there are two items in particular to account for lower > prices in other countries. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Other is that they are not required by law to treat people who can't pay > (Even those there illegally - if they have such a problem). There is probably a lot of truth in those statements. I was in the hospital with a hernia operation, room mate had his hemorrhoids worked on. He would get pissed off every time I would tell a joke that made him laugh. SignatureBILL P. Just Me & DOG >> As I see it there are two items in particular to account for lower >> prices in other countries. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > hemorrhoids worked on. He would get pissed off every time I would tell a > joke that made him laugh. Wouldn't care for either one of them. I go in next Tuesday to get my prostate vaporized. Just a outpatient but full Anesthesia. PVP supposed to be far superior to the old TURP (roto-Rooter). http://www.laserscope.com/surgical/consumers/greenlightpv.html I did a lot of research and switched Urologists to get that procedure. Also have found out that most Socialized Medicine countries don't offer that treatment or at a minimum are very selective (high ranking officials only??). For the common citizen the knife is "good enough" and more important cheaper. >>> As I see it there are two items in particular to account for lower >>> prices in other countries. [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > officials only??). For the common citizen the knife is "good enough" > and more important cheaper. And where are you having it done at. SignatureBILL P. Just Me & DOG >>>> As I see it there are two items in particular to account for lower >>>> prices in other countries. [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > > And where are you having it done at. Littleton Hospital, Littleton, CO I had the choice of one of three hospitals in the southern Denver area. There is a group that has very good information about that problem. sci.med.prostate.bph (no OT discussions there!!) >I've been pondering this since it was announced by the World Health >Organization that the U.S. now rates around 32nd in the world for health [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >same wait period. He said the equipment was far newer than what he had seen >in the U.S. hospitals and doctors offices. Something here doesn't wash. In fact I don't believe a word of this. Sorry >Many drugs are formulated in foreign countries and Pfizer and others claim >the patents in the U.S. Costs far less to buy overseas. Yes, foreign companies violate international intellectual property law and take profits from those that invest millions to develop new drugs. And, BTW, very often the drugs sold to replace American products are not accurate reproductions They may be contaminated and the drugs may not be effective. >Insurance has given the U.S. health profession a blank check. Now that they >want checks on their expenditures, we will slide further down the scale in >health care. > >I wouldn't be so fast to call other countries as having mediocre care >without looking at the U.S. system. We are not all that great. That's why all those foreign leaders come here for treatment. We may not be the best but we are miles ahead of second place. >B~ >Boy, the oil companies have you just where they want you. Brain washed!!! And Harry Reid and his ilk have you just where they want you. Stuck on stupid!! Can anyone with an IQ higher than a carrot actually believe that George Bush would purposely drive the price of gas to $3.00+ when he could have approval ratings in the 99% range if he managed to drop it it to $2.00? Have you heard Harry, Diane Feinstein, Al Gore or Hillarious make ONE statement as to what THEY would do to lower prices? No,of course not. The world oil market is driven by the world oil users of which we are only a part. And GWB is not any part. >>Boy, the oil companies have you just where they want you. Brain washed!!! > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > No,of course not. The world oil market is driven by the world oil > users of which we are only a part. And GWB is not any part. The Democrats and smart Republicans are keeping their mouths shut. The Pres is already hanging himself and they don't see the need to help with the rope as they might get tangled in it and hang themselves. I can't stand it anymore... :) > The Pres is already hanging himself Yeah, and if he keeps it up, his chances of being re-elected this fall are ZERO! Signature:) JR > I can't stand it anymore... :) > >>The Pres is already hanging himself > > Yeah, and if he keeps it up, his chances of being > re-elected this fall are ZERO! When the Pres is hanging himself he is hanging any would be coat tailers and quite possibly the Republican Party for the next50 years. Read between the lines :) >> I can't stand it anymore... :) >> [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >and quite possibly the Republican Party for the next50 years. >Read between the lines :) Sounds like the wishful thinking of a disgruntled, bitter Dhimmicrat.
|
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.