Comparative French standard of living improvements
Mar 5th 2004, 5:50 am
#46
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Comparative French standard of living improvements
On Fri, 05 Mar 2004 17:26:06 +0100, Earl Evleth <[email protected]>
wrote:
>On 5/03/04 16:05, in article [email protected], "Olivers"
><[email protected]> wrote:
>> Earl Evleth muttered....
>>
>>
>>>
>>> Well, now we are two centuries down stream and taxes are still with
>>> us. The difference between France and the USA lies in where the tax
>>> revenues to. In France they are recycled back and in the US they are
>>> handed over to --- Halliburton!
>>
>> To finish a well meaning post, logical if not quite accurate, with a heavy-
>> handed noxious lump of bullshit defeats your purpose and imminetly lessens
>> your credibility.
>>
>> Incidentally, you are aware that Halliburton's principal (and in some
>> areas, only) competitor is the Freench company, Schlumberger.
>Naturally I was joking, but no, I don`t pay any attention to the competition
>part. Cheney has not holdings in Schlumberger. Do they also do bribery?
You mean like French companies routinely do? What has Cheney got to
do with this anyway? He hasn't been CEO of Halliburton for years. Or
would you also blame whatever you don't like about Bush on Clinton
because he also had the job?
>Judging from Chirac, yes. The only one I feel is very honest is Arlette
>Laguiller, the Trotskyite. Her party, the Lutte Ouvrière has never
>capture a town or city administration, thus could not source the
>big money (for France) which is public contracts to private
>contractors. These often involve a 5% kickback. Some French
>city administrations are a lot like American, take Chicago for
>example.
Which is the only reason.
>As far as I can see the French are out of the Iraqi loop.
>Much of what is legal in the US is illegal in France. Like huge
>special interest donations to parties. I think I read that Halliburton
>favors the Republicans by 10 to 1 in donations.
So what? Labor unions routinely do the same for the Democrats. See
NEA.
>>> PS agreed this is a overly simple explanation but I am thinking of the
>>> privative level of the anti-tax mentalities. Keep it simple.
>
>>>
>> Better that you should have avoided the subject altogether given your lack
>> of comprehension thereof.
>I understand things very well since I pay taxes in both countries!
Wll, no one else sees that.
>> I like you believe overall taxation in the US to be somewhat higher than
>> exists in France, and in some cases highly inequitable, but find your
>> unawareness or inability to comprehend the multi-tiered and mutually
>> independent layers of US governance (as compared to the centralized nature of
>> French government) sort of amusing when you apply your efforts to tax policy.
>I guess you missed the point of my posting. It had to do with income
>distributions and their change in time, not taxation. American posters
>are so obsessed with taxes that they are fixated. Historically, we
>cheated the British crown out its taxes and roar on with the war on
>taxes, which predated, those other culture wars on sex, alcohol, drugs
>etc.
>I, of course, tried to be a little funny about in the prior posting, making
>fun of that obsession, but humor is beyond the conservative's mind!
That's because you are posting utter blather, of course. What has
something that happened 200 years ago have to do with anything?
Especially since it was British colonialists doing this, not
Americans, since America didn't exist at the time.
>I will therefore skip over any tax diatribe and proceed on.
>
>> Interestingly, as of yesterday's polling, he had crept back to "evens" with
>> Kerry, with some 54% of the polled giving him high marks, a relatively high
>> number at this point in the campaign, after several months of "Nothing but
>> Dems" in the political reportage in the media.
>He got a lot of media coverage, which is why the polls were abnormal. Most
>people have a short attention span, no polls will have meaning until late
>September, after the convention. When the polls flop around a lot it means
>a fluid situation. Next, we now have Nader who polled 5% but I don`t
>believe that one either. We have a 50/50 situation as we have had before.
>The center will decide the elections.
Like they did in Florida the last time?
>> National health care remains just such a "public opinion" issue, with the
>majority of voters, a
>> majority which parallels individual tax burdens, remaining hostile toward
>> a system in which they perceive they will be taxed while the "non-
>> productive" will over-utilize medical services.
>I was visiting the US when Hilliary was pushing her plan. When I saw vested
>interest forces which were mounted against her, the TV advertising (now Bush
>wants to replay again the 9/11 attack over and over and over again) and the
>disinformation of those ads, I figured she has lost it. She was too immature
>politically to handle it and the nation will never be ready for it. I think
>something like 50 million dollars in TV advertising was launched against
>her. The one positive thing about French politics, no paid political
>advertising. We are in the middle of regional elections and we see
>nightly presentations but no blitz.
So what? Just because the French don't allow free speech (see Muslim
children and their scarves) why shouldn't we?
>America right now is too susceptible to big lies, believes them. The Iraqi
>thing just proved that. Basically, you can fool enough of the people enough
>of the time. But basically, I don`t think the American system is well
>organized enough to do a national health care system.
How stupid can you be? The Iraqi situation proved what? That the
French, German and Russians were all trying to undercut the UN
sanctions, traded illegal nuclear technology with Saddam and others,
etc. etc. How completely duplicitous the French are? Like invading
African countries over 30 times without ever going to the UN for
anything (see Ivory Coast for the latest). Why don't you look at the
situation now, with oil production above prewar levels, electricity
the same, telephones, sovereignty coming, etc. All without any help
from the French that's sure. The big lie was the French's. Where is
all the civil war, etc. they were predicting? Who wants a European
style national healthcare system that is paid for by overtaxing,
doesn't deliver the healthcare you want when you want it, has no where
the quality of the US system for sophisticated healthcare, and is paid
for in a large measure by the US taxpayers overpaying for drugs here?
Not us, that's for sure. Go look at the 80,000 some pages of
regulations that the Eurocrats have passed and see how well organized
that is. Of course, France is trying to dominate that as well as
usual.
>Even Medicare is a mess. Medicaid is 50 different plans in 50 different
>states.
Only a complete moron thinks that there is a national solution to
everything when the European ones don't work worth a damn.
>> While that's certainly a self-serving state of social unawareness and somewhat
>reactionary, it
>> remins the majority opinion, difficult to alter, and actually reinforced by
>> attacks....just as the "gay marriage" issue, headlined by the vanity and
>> egos a handful of mayors and activists, has almost halted progress toward
>> the creation of legal, recognized same sex unions.
>With 2% of the people possibly involved, it sure mesmerized the media and
>got Bush out there to see if he can profit through political pandering.
You mean like Clinton?
wrote:
>On 5/03/04 16:05, in article [email protected], "Olivers"
><[email protected]> wrote:
>> Earl Evleth muttered....
>>
>>
>>>
>>> Well, now we are two centuries down stream and taxes are still with
>>> us. The difference between France and the USA lies in where the tax
>>> revenues to. In France they are recycled back and in the US they are
>>> handed over to --- Halliburton!
>>
>> To finish a well meaning post, logical if not quite accurate, with a heavy-
>> handed noxious lump of bullshit defeats your purpose and imminetly lessens
>> your credibility.
>>
>> Incidentally, you are aware that Halliburton's principal (and in some
>> areas, only) competitor is the Freench company, Schlumberger.
>Naturally I was joking, but no, I don`t pay any attention to the competition
>part. Cheney has not holdings in Schlumberger. Do they also do bribery?
You mean like French companies routinely do? What has Cheney got to
do with this anyway? He hasn't been CEO of Halliburton for years. Or
would you also blame whatever you don't like about Bush on Clinton
because he also had the job?
>Judging from Chirac, yes. The only one I feel is very honest is Arlette
>Laguiller, the Trotskyite. Her party, the Lutte Ouvrière has never
>capture a town or city administration, thus could not source the
>big money (for France) which is public contracts to private
>contractors. These often involve a 5% kickback. Some French
>city administrations are a lot like American, take Chicago for
>example.
Which is the only reason.
>As far as I can see the French are out of the Iraqi loop.
>Much of what is legal in the US is illegal in France. Like huge
>special interest donations to parties. I think I read that Halliburton
>favors the Republicans by 10 to 1 in donations.
So what? Labor unions routinely do the same for the Democrats. See
NEA.
>>> PS agreed this is a overly simple explanation but I am thinking of the
>>> privative level of the anti-tax mentalities. Keep it simple.
>
>>>
>> Better that you should have avoided the subject altogether given your lack
>> of comprehension thereof.
>I understand things very well since I pay taxes in both countries!
Wll, no one else sees that.
>> I like you believe overall taxation in the US to be somewhat higher than
>> exists in France, and in some cases highly inequitable, but find your
>> unawareness or inability to comprehend the multi-tiered and mutually
>> independent layers of US governance (as compared to the centralized nature of
>> French government) sort of amusing when you apply your efforts to tax policy.
>I guess you missed the point of my posting. It had to do with income
>distributions and their change in time, not taxation. American posters
>are so obsessed with taxes that they are fixated. Historically, we
>cheated the British crown out its taxes and roar on with the war on
>taxes, which predated, those other culture wars on sex, alcohol, drugs
>etc.
>I, of course, tried to be a little funny about in the prior posting, making
>fun of that obsession, but humor is beyond the conservative's mind!
That's because you are posting utter blather, of course. What has
something that happened 200 years ago have to do with anything?
Especially since it was British colonialists doing this, not
Americans, since America didn't exist at the time.
>I will therefore skip over any tax diatribe and proceed on.
>
>> Interestingly, as of yesterday's polling, he had crept back to "evens" with
>> Kerry, with some 54% of the polled giving him high marks, a relatively high
>> number at this point in the campaign, after several months of "Nothing but
>> Dems" in the political reportage in the media.
>He got a lot of media coverage, which is why the polls were abnormal. Most
>people have a short attention span, no polls will have meaning until late
>September, after the convention. When the polls flop around a lot it means
>a fluid situation. Next, we now have Nader who polled 5% but I don`t
>believe that one either. We have a 50/50 situation as we have had before.
>The center will decide the elections.
Like they did in Florida the last time?
>> National health care remains just such a "public opinion" issue, with the
>majority of voters, a
>> majority which parallels individual tax burdens, remaining hostile toward
>> a system in which they perceive they will be taxed while the "non-
>> productive" will over-utilize medical services.
>I was visiting the US when Hilliary was pushing her plan. When I saw vested
>interest forces which were mounted against her, the TV advertising (now Bush
>wants to replay again the 9/11 attack over and over and over again) and the
>disinformation of those ads, I figured she has lost it. She was too immature
>politically to handle it and the nation will never be ready for it. I think
>something like 50 million dollars in TV advertising was launched against
>her. The one positive thing about French politics, no paid political
>advertising. We are in the middle of regional elections and we see
>nightly presentations but no blitz.
So what? Just because the French don't allow free speech (see Muslim
children and their scarves) why shouldn't we?
>America right now is too susceptible to big lies, believes them. The Iraqi
>thing just proved that. Basically, you can fool enough of the people enough
>of the time. But basically, I don`t think the American system is well
>organized enough to do a national health care system.
How stupid can you be? The Iraqi situation proved what? That the
French, German and Russians were all trying to undercut the UN
sanctions, traded illegal nuclear technology with Saddam and others,
etc. etc. How completely duplicitous the French are? Like invading
African countries over 30 times without ever going to the UN for
anything (see Ivory Coast for the latest). Why don't you look at the
situation now, with oil production above prewar levels, electricity
the same, telephones, sovereignty coming, etc. All without any help
from the French that's sure. The big lie was the French's. Where is
all the civil war, etc. they were predicting? Who wants a European
style national healthcare system that is paid for by overtaxing,
doesn't deliver the healthcare you want when you want it, has no where
the quality of the US system for sophisticated healthcare, and is paid
for in a large measure by the US taxpayers overpaying for drugs here?
Not us, that's for sure. Go look at the 80,000 some pages of
regulations that the Eurocrats have passed and see how well organized
that is. Of course, France is trying to dominate that as well as
usual.
>Even Medicare is a mess. Medicaid is 50 different plans in 50 different
>states.
Only a complete moron thinks that there is a national solution to
everything when the European ones don't work worth a damn.
>> While that's certainly a self-serving state of social unawareness and somewhat
>reactionary, it
>> remins the majority opinion, difficult to alter, and actually reinforced by
>> attacks....just as the "gay marriage" issue, headlined by the vanity and
>> egos a handful of mayors and activists, has almost halted progress toward
>> the creation of legal, recognized same sex unions.
>With 2% of the people possibly involved, it sure mesmerized the media and
>got Bush out there to see if he can profit through political pandering.
You mean like Clinton?
Mar 5th 2004, 5:52 am
#47
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Comparative French standard of living improvements
On Fri, 05 Mar 2004 19:22:51 +0100, Mxsmanic <[email protected]>
wrote:
>PJ O'Donovan writes:
>> I am getting sick and tired of attempting to convince these socialist
>> nabobs of negativity that because we have numbers of uninsured, it
>> does not mean that the uninsured do not have access to health care
>> here as required by law.
>Emergency care is only a tiny fraction of total health care. It's scant
>consolation to have access to health care only when you are at death's
>door.
Who says you have to be at death's door? You can go anytime you want.
And you might wait a couple of hours instead of years like in Europe
to get your care.
wrote:
>PJ O'Donovan writes:
>> I am getting sick and tired of attempting to convince these socialist
>> nabobs of negativity that because we have numbers of uninsured, it
>> does not mean that the uninsured do not have access to health care
>> here as required by law.
>Emergency care is only a tiny fraction of total health care. It's scant
>consolation to have access to health care only when you are at death's
>door.
Who says you have to be at death's door? You can go anytime you want.
And you might wait a couple of hours instead of years like in Europe
to get your care.
Mar 5th 2004, 6:05 am
#48
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Comparative French standard of living improvements
<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Fri, 05 Mar 2004 19:22:51 +0100, Mxsmanic <[email protected]>
> wrote:
> >PJ O'Donovan writes:
> >
> >> I am getting sick and tired of attempting to convince these socialist
> >> nabobs of negativity that because we have numbers of uninsured, it
> >> does not mean that the uninsured do not have access to health care
> >> here as required by law.
> >
> >Emergency care is only a tiny fraction of total health care. It's scant
> >consolation to have access to health care only when you are at death's
> >door.
> Who says you have to be at death's door? You can go anytime you want.
> And you might wait a couple of hours instead of years like in Europe
> to get your care.
You can turn up at an emergency room in Europe too. The
types of intervention that involve a wait are typically chronic
problems such as arthritis that require hip and knee replacements.
No emergency room on the planet is going to provide that
type of cover.
Keith
news:[email protected]...
> On Fri, 05 Mar 2004 19:22:51 +0100, Mxsmanic <[email protected]>
> wrote:
> >PJ O'Donovan writes:
> >
> >> I am getting sick and tired of attempting to convince these socialist
> >> nabobs of negativity that because we have numbers of uninsured, it
> >> does not mean that the uninsured do not have access to health care
> >> here as required by law.
> >
> >Emergency care is only a tiny fraction of total health care. It's scant
> >consolation to have access to health care only when you are at death's
> >door.
> Who says you have to be at death's door? You can go anytime you want.
> And you might wait a couple of hours instead of years like in Europe
> to get your care.
You can turn up at an emergency room in Europe too. The
types of intervention that involve a wait are typically chronic
problems such as arthritis that require hip and knee replacements.
No emergency room on the planet is going to provide that
type of cover.
Keith
Mar 5th 2004, 6:13 am
#49
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Comparative French standard of living improvements
<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>,
> [email protected] () wrote:
> > There is absolutely nothing free about these benefits or others like
> > healthcare that Europeans are always crowing about. You pay for them
> > daily in all the taxes you pay over there (much higher than in the US)
> > and then make the completely false claim that they are somehow free.
> > A completely ridiculous argument. Prepaying through taxes is hardly
> > free.
> The point that is so incredibly simple to grasp is that the provision of
> the services is not in any way related to the amount the person has paid
> (except in a few cases, e.g. AIUI in the UK some unemployment benefits are
> not immediately available to new immigrants). So to the recipient part of
> the service /is/ free.
Free at the point of use has always been the cornerstone of the
UK NHS system, it has been eroded a little with regard to
dental and optical care but it still remains a very popular idea.
For all that we grouse about the system the fact is that I
get better primary care in the UK than my medical cover
in the US gave when I lived there. I can walk into my
doctors surgery anytime without worrying about deductibles
and he still makes house calls for those who cant attend
the surgery, something that has been very rare in the US
for many years.
Keith
news:[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>,
> [email protected] () wrote:
> > There is absolutely nothing free about these benefits or others like
> > healthcare that Europeans are always crowing about. You pay for them
> > daily in all the taxes you pay over there (much higher than in the US)
> > and then make the completely false claim that they are somehow free.
> > A completely ridiculous argument. Prepaying through taxes is hardly
> > free.
> The point that is so incredibly simple to grasp is that the provision of
> the services is not in any way related to the amount the person has paid
> (except in a few cases, e.g. AIUI in the UK some unemployment benefits are
> not immediately available to new immigrants). So to the recipient part of
> the service /is/ free.
Free at the point of use has always been the cornerstone of the
UK NHS system, it has been eroded a little with regard to
dental and optical care but it still remains a very popular idea.
For all that we grouse about the system the fact is that I
get better primary care in the UK than my medical cover
in the US gave when I lived there. I can walk into my
doctors surgery anytime without worrying about deductibles
and he still makes house calls for those who cant attend
the surgery, something that has been very rare in the US
for many years.
Keith
Mar 5th 2004, 8:15 am
#50
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Comparative French standard of living improvements
On Fri, 5 Mar 2004 19:13:38 -0000, "Keith Willshaw"
<[email protected]> wrote:
><[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> In article <[email protected]>,
>> [email protected] () wrote:
>> > There is absolutely nothing free about these benefits or others like
>> > healthcare that Europeans are always crowing about. You pay for them
>> > daily in all the taxes you pay over there (much higher than in the US)
>> > and then make the completely false claim that they are somehow free.
>> > A completely ridiculous argument. Prepaying through taxes is hardly
>> > free.
>> The point that is so incredibly simple to grasp is that the provision of
>> the services is not in any way related to the amount the person has paid
>> (except in a few cases, e.g. AIUI in the UK some unemployment benefits are
>> not immediately available to new immigrants). So to the recipient part of
>> the service /is/ free.
>Free at the point of use has always been the cornerstone of the
>UK NHS system, it has been eroded a little with regard to
>dental and optical care but it still remains a very popular idea.
>For all that we grouse about the system the fact is that I
>get better primary care in the UK than my medical cover
>in the US gave when I lived there. I can walk into my
>doctors surgery anytime without worrying about deductibles
>and he still makes house calls for those who cant attend
>the surgery, something that has been very rare in the US
>for many years.
>Keith
Well, that's your cover. I can go to my doctor here anytime and see
him without any deductibles at all. Just a minimal copay. And
housecalls are routine in rural areas for the same reasons. In an
urban or suburban area what's the problem with going to the office?
<[email protected]> wrote:
><[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> In article <[email protected]>,
>> [email protected] () wrote:
>> > There is absolutely nothing free about these benefits or others like
>> > healthcare that Europeans are always crowing about. You pay for them
>> > daily in all the taxes you pay over there (much higher than in the US)
>> > and then make the completely false claim that they are somehow free.
>> > A completely ridiculous argument. Prepaying through taxes is hardly
>> > free.
>> The point that is so incredibly simple to grasp is that the provision of
>> the services is not in any way related to the amount the person has paid
>> (except in a few cases, e.g. AIUI in the UK some unemployment benefits are
>> not immediately available to new immigrants). So to the recipient part of
>> the service /is/ free.
>Free at the point of use has always been the cornerstone of the
>UK NHS system, it has been eroded a little with regard to
>dental and optical care but it still remains a very popular idea.
>For all that we grouse about the system the fact is that I
>get better primary care in the UK than my medical cover
>in the US gave when I lived there. I can walk into my
>doctors surgery anytime without worrying about deductibles
>and he still makes house calls for those who cant attend
>the surgery, something that has been very rare in the US
>for many years.
>Keith
Well, that's your cover. I can go to my doctor here anytime and see
him without any deductibles at all. Just a minimal copay. And
housecalls are routine in rural areas for the same reasons. In an
urban or suburban area what's the problem with going to the office?
Mar 5th 2004, 8:49 am
#51
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Comparative French standard of living improvements
On 5/03/04 19:50, in article [email protected],
"[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Fri, 05 Mar 2004 17:26:06 +0100, Earl Evleth <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> You mean like French companies routinely do?
I don`t know, what are your facts.
> What has Cheney got to
> do with this anyway? He hasn't been CEO of Halliburton for years. Or
> would you also blame whatever you don't like about Bush on Clinton
> because he also had the job?
The Nigeria bribery scandal dates from the time he was CEO!!!
I guess you are behind on the facts, but following is an update
which will help you out, son.
Have fun! But the part on Cheney's direct involvement is:
"Exchange Commission is investigating whether an accounting practice
introduced at the time the company was run by Mr Cheney was legal. And a
French judge is investigating whether a consortium, including a Halliburton
subsidiary, illegally bribed Nigerian officials to secure a contract to
build one of the world's largest liquefied natural gas facilities (see
below)."
Where is Kenneth Starr when we need him???
Earl
****
Halliburton under attack on home front
By Thomas Catan, Joshua Chaffin, Sheila McNulty, Michael Peel and William
Wallis
Published: March 5 2004 4:00 | Last Updated: March 5 2004 9:12
Halliburton, the company that for decades has gone to war with the US Army,
is under sharp attack at home. For the first time in its 85-year existence,
Halliburton is having to fight a pitched battle for public opinion - a
significant turn of events for a company that was scarcely known outside its
own industry just five years ago.
"When I joined Halliburton I knew I was going to work on some big things,"
an employee says in the company's latest television commercial playing in
the US. Against a background of Halliburton firefighters fighting flames at
Iraqi oil facilities, the narrator says: "We put out a few fires at work."
As Iraqi schoolchildren are shown singing and clapping, the narrator
continues: "We built bridges . . . schools . . . all over the world. But the
biggest thing? Serving our troops good ol' American food . . . so they'd
feel just a little closer to home. Yeah."
The ad is part of a new public relations campaign by Halliburton, the oil
services company, to counter the damage done to its reputation from the
proliferating scandals surrounding it. The company, which was run by Dick
Cheney from 1995 until he became vice-president in 2000, insists it is the
victim of the highly charged political atmosphere in the run-up to this
year's presidential election.
Halliburton has become a lightning rod for controversy and a worldwide
symbol for critics of the Bush administration's policies on Iraq and other
matters. The controversy has even led to chatter in Washington - among
Democrats and some Republicans - about whether Mr Cheney will be replaced as
vice-presidential candidate.
"Putting out a few fires at work" might also be an apt job description for
harried Halliburton executives, defending the company against charges on
everything including price-gouging in Iraq, sanctions-busting in Libya and
Iran and bribe-paying in Nigeria.
The company denies allegations that it has overcharged the military,
benefited from its political contacts or otherwise acted inappropriately.
But the attacks have become so intense that Dave Lesar, chief executive, has
appeared in television advertisements assuring viewers that Halliburton has
won government contracts because of " what we know, not who we know".
Indeed, the company's political connections now appear more a hindrance than
a help. In its latest regulatory filing, Halliburton took the unusual step
of citing its ties to Mr Cheney as a risk factor. "Halliburton has been and
continues to be the focus of allegations, some of which appear to be made
for political reasons by political adversaries of the vice-president and the
current Bush administration," the company said. "We expect that this focus
and these allegations will continue and possibly intensify as the 2004
elections draw nearer."
Halliburton's ties to the military stretch back well before Mr Cheney
arrived on the political scene. During the second world war, its subsidiary,
Kellogg, Brown & Root (KBR), built ships for the US Navy. More recently,
following the Gulf war of 1991, the company was awarded a
multi-billion-dollar contract to handle everything for the military, from
laundry to forward base construction and mail delivery. The UK arm last
month won a similar contract to provide logistical support for the UK armed
forces.
The theory behind the arrangement is that it is better - and cheaper for the
government - to leave non-military tasks to private companies such as KBR so
that soldiers can get on with the fighting.
To some, however, the war in Iraq and its aftermath has left the company
looking more like a profiteer than a patriot. Halliburton's revenue soared
63 per cent in the past quarter, largely as a result of its work for the US
government in Iraq.
Halliburton's problems began even before Saddam Hussein was toppled, when it
was revealed that the company had been secretly awarded a contract by the US
Army Corps of Engineers to extinguish oil well fires and manage Iraq's oil
industry. The deal was potentially worth up to $7bn (£3.8bn, €5.6bn).
The Pentagon said KBR was selected without competition because of the
urgency of the task and the need for secrecy. It promised that the contract
was a temporary "bridge" that would be replaced shortly in a more open and
competitive bidding process, and that the company stood to earn much less
than the maximum figure.
But that replacement was delayed repeatedly until January, by which time
Halliburton had reaped more than $3bn for repairing Iraq's creaking oil
industry. Halliburton then won one of the two new oil infrastructure
contracts, worth $1.2bn.
While that controversy has died down, other, potentially more serious ones
have emerged. In December, Pentagon auditors claimed that the company
overcharged it by $61m for petrol and other fuel that Halliburton imported
from Kuwait. The Kuwaiti supplier, Altanmia Commercial Marketing, charged
KBR more than double the price that a separate Army group was paying for oil
from Turkey.
Halliburton insists it was directed to use the Kuwaiti company by the Army
Corps of Engineers and supplied the fuel at the best price under the
circumstances. It does not appear to have pocketed any money from the high
charges but, instead, to have passed them on to the government. Last week,
the Pentagon launched a criminal investigation into the matter.
Even Halliburton's dishing up of "good ol' American food" to troops has
proved controversial. The company has suspended nearly $175m in bills to the
Pentagon for feeding US soldiers until a dispute over possible overcharging
for meals can be settled.
It was also recently forced to return $6.3m to the military after
acknowledging that "one, or perhaps two" former employees had accepted
kickbacks from Kuwaiti suppliers.
In addition, the US Treasury has reopened an investigation into whether
Halliburton violated US sanctions against Iran and Libya by doing business
with the countries through a Cayman Islands subsidiary. The Securities and
Exchange Commission is investigating whether an accounting practice
introduced at the time the company was run by Mr Cheney was legal. And a
French judge is investigating whether a consortium, including a Halliburton
subsidiary, illegally bribed Nigerian officials to secure a contract to
build one of the world's largest liquefied natural gas facilities (see
below). Halliburton denies wrongdoing in connection with all investigations.
"I'm starting to wonder if this is a company on the verge of an ethical
nervous breakdown," says William Hartung, a policy professor at the New
School university, taking stock of the multiple investigations.
The thorn in the side of one of the world's largest military contractors is
Henry Waxman, the Democratic congressman from California. Mr Waxman and his
staff on the government affairs committee uncovered several potential abuses
by the company in Iraq and called them to the attention of the media. The
committee lacks subpoena power and has only two full-time investigators but
it has successfully carried out an unrelenting letter-writing campaign to
the Corps of Engineers, which awarded the contracts and was responsible for
checking them.
Mr Waxman's criticism - often dismissed by Republican critics as partisan -
was given a big boost last month when Henry Bunting, then working as a
procurement expert for KBR in Kuwait, agreed to come forward as a
whistle-blower. Mr Bunting, a Vietnam veteran and registered Republican,
made a compelling witness at last month's Democrat-sponsored hearing on
Capitol Hill, in which lawmakers took turns examining an orange gym towel
embroidered with the letters "KBR" and expressing contempt for it.
This seemingly innocuous item was originally purchased by KBR for one of the
recreation centres it operates in Baghdad for US troops. To the legislators,
the towel is a symbol of all that is wrong with Halliburton.
The fancy monogram, according to Mr Bunting, roughly tripled the price of
the towel - a cost that was ultimately passed on to the federal government.
This little extravagance was in keeping with the company's unofficial motto,
Mr Bunting said, which was "Don't worry about price" - since US taxpayers
were footing the bill. If, as Mr Bunting maintained, there is a culture of
overcharging at Halliburton, perhaps the government shares some of the
blame. In recent years, the US government has farmed out a growing range of
tasks, once performed by soldiers, to private companies. Yet, some contend,
scrutiny of these contracts is woefully inadequate.
The US Congress audit arm found last year that, though military members were
generally satisfied with contractors' performance, "broader [scrutiny] is
lacking in key areas". The General Accounting Office also found "inadequate
training for staff responsible for overseeing contractors".
A second problem is that the arrangements under which companies are paid
provide no incentive to save taxpayers' money. At present, most government
contracts of the type Halliburton takes on are on a "cost-plus" basis - that
is, the US government will reimburse the company's expenses and pay a
percentage on top. The result is that the more a company spends on a job,
the more profit it makes.
Halliburton maintains that contracts are subject to rigorous scrutiny. The
company says it employs 54 auditors, who "continually audit financial
aspects of the company operations". In addition, the company has "300
warranted procurement specialists supporting its government business".
But Mr Bunting - a former procurement specialist himself - testified that
during nearly four months in Kuwait, not a single auditor crossed his path.
Conversely, the arrangement provides relatively small gains for contractors
such as Halliburton that must bid against each other by cutting their profit
margins. Although the company's contracting work for the government usually
makes up more than half its revenues, it accounts for no more than a quarter
of its profits.
Given the risk to Halliburton's reputation of being viewed as an operational
arm of the US government, some securities analysts question whether it would
not be in Halliburton's interest to jettison KBR and return to its
traditional work of providing oil services.
Halliburton executives argue that government contracting provides steady,
risk-free work. "While the engineering and construction arm of the company
generates less profit than the energy services group, it also offers a good
offset to the cyclical nature of the oil and gas industry," Mr Lesar tells
the Financial Times.
John Olson, analyst at the US investment bank Sanders Morris Harris,
generally agrees with that strategy, but suspects that the political
controversy surrounding KBR's government contracts is starting to have an
impact with portfolio managers holding Halliburton stock.
Still, Randy Harl, KBR president, has vowed to persevere: "We will continue
to support the soldiers even though the price of this mission is the cost of
having to defend ourselves at home."
Halliburton faces a gamut of investigations into its conduct, many of which
are being seized on by Democrats in the run-up to the presidential election.
But it is the investigation with which the US electorate is least familiar
that arguably poses the greatest risk to the White House.
The probe centres on a series of payments totalling $180m (£97m, €145m), by
a consortium that includes Halliburton's KBR subsidiary, to a London-based
middleman between 1995 and 2002.
It is the only significant inquiry that centres on acts alleged to have
taken place while Dick Cheney, US vice-president, was at the helm of the
company. And the investigation is the only one occurring outside the
auspices of the US government.
While the US Justice Department is investigating, the case has been most
vigorously pursued by a French magistrate. The French press has reported
that Judge Renaud van Ruymbeke is looking at whether charges should be
brought against Mr Cheney for any misuse of funds that may have occurred.
Nigerian authorities are also investigating.
The French judge is looking into whether - as a former director of the
consortium has contended - the payments were funnelled to Nigerian officials
as bribes to secure contracts to build the Nigeria Liquefied Natural Gas
project (NLNG).
TSKJ, the consortium building the massive plant off the coast of Nigeria,
has denied the accusations. The company is a joint venture between
Halliburton's KBR, France's Technip, Snamprogetti of Italy and Japan's JGC.
Investment in NLNG has already surpassed $9bn and will reach $11bn-$12bn by
2006, in what is already one of the largest such projects in the world.
In Nigeria, some observers have raised questions over the timing of a big
new contract awarded to TSKJ in 1999 to expand NLNG's processing capacity by
50 per cent. The award was approved by NLNG in February that year, shortly
before the return to civilian rule in May.
"It was signed very quickly," says one senior government official.
All the companies involved have argued they were not at fault - but none has
categorically denied that the alleged bribery took place.
NLNG, a joint venture between the Nigerian government and oil
multinationals, says it was satisfied that correct procedures were followed
in arranging the 1999 contract with TSKJ to expand the gas project. The
company, which has paid TSKJ undisclosed sums for several building projects,
says it has no knowledge of payments made by the consortium in the course of
its work.
Royal Dutch/Shell, the leading private sector shareholder in the NLNG
project, told the Financial Times this year that NLNG had investigated the
matter and that no further action was warranted.
Technip declined to comment on the allegations, although the company has
previously denied making any "secret" payments.
Halliburton, meanwhile, says it has "no basis to assume that any of its
employees" have violated US laws prohibiting foreign bribery, but is
co-operating with authorities and has "undertaken an examination" of this
issue.
Unprompted, Halliburton also said by e-mail: "Mr Cheney is no longer
affiliated with the company and no one here has contacted the vice-president
or his office on this matter."
"[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Fri, 05 Mar 2004 17:26:06 +0100, Earl Evleth <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> You mean like French companies routinely do?
I don`t know, what are your facts.
> What has Cheney got to
> do with this anyway? He hasn't been CEO of Halliburton for years. Or
> would you also blame whatever you don't like about Bush on Clinton
> because he also had the job?
The Nigeria bribery scandal dates from the time he was CEO!!!
I guess you are behind on the facts, but following is an update
which will help you out, son.
Have fun! But the part on Cheney's direct involvement is:
"Exchange Commission is investigating whether an accounting practice
introduced at the time the company was run by Mr Cheney was legal. And a
French judge is investigating whether a consortium, including a Halliburton
subsidiary, illegally bribed Nigerian officials to secure a contract to
build one of the world's largest liquefied natural gas facilities (see
below)."
Where is Kenneth Starr when we need him???
Earl
****
Halliburton under attack on home front
By Thomas Catan, Joshua Chaffin, Sheila McNulty, Michael Peel and William
Wallis
Published: March 5 2004 4:00 | Last Updated: March 5 2004 9:12
Halliburton, the company that for decades has gone to war with the US Army,
is under sharp attack at home. For the first time in its 85-year existence,
Halliburton is having to fight a pitched battle for public opinion - a
significant turn of events for a company that was scarcely known outside its
own industry just five years ago.
"When I joined Halliburton I knew I was going to work on some big things,"
an employee says in the company's latest television commercial playing in
the US. Against a background of Halliburton firefighters fighting flames at
Iraqi oil facilities, the narrator says: "We put out a few fires at work."
As Iraqi schoolchildren are shown singing and clapping, the narrator
continues: "We built bridges . . . schools . . . all over the world. But the
biggest thing? Serving our troops good ol' American food . . . so they'd
feel just a little closer to home. Yeah."
The ad is part of a new public relations campaign by Halliburton, the oil
services company, to counter the damage done to its reputation from the
proliferating scandals surrounding it. The company, which was run by Dick
Cheney from 1995 until he became vice-president in 2000, insists it is the
victim of the highly charged political atmosphere in the run-up to this
year's presidential election.
Halliburton has become a lightning rod for controversy and a worldwide
symbol for critics of the Bush administration's policies on Iraq and other
matters. The controversy has even led to chatter in Washington - among
Democrats and some Republicans - about whether Mr Cheney will be replaced as
vice-presidential candidate.
"Putting out a few fires at work" might also be an apt job description for
harried Halliburton executives, defending the company against charges on
everything including price-gouging in Iraq, sanctions-busting in Libya and
Iran and bribe-paying in Nigeria.
The company denies allegations that it has overcharged the military,
benefited from its political contacts or otherwise acted inappropriately.
But the attacks have become so intense that Dave Lesar, chief executive, has
appeared in television advertisements assuring viewers that Halliburton has
won government contracts because of " what we know, not who we know".
Indeed, the company's political connections now appear more a hindrance than
a help. In its latest regulatory filing, Halliburton took the unusual step
of citing its ties to Mr Cheney as a risk factor. "Halliburton has been and
continues to be the focus of allegations, some of which appear to be made
for political reasons by political adversaries of the vice-president and the
current Bush administration," the company said. "We expect that this focus
and these allegations will continue and possibly intensify as the 2004
elections draw nearer."
Halliburton's ties to the military stretch back well before Mr Cheney
arrived on the political scene. During the second world war, its subsidiary,
Kellogg, Brown & Root (KBR), built ships for the US Navy. More recently,
following the Gulf war of 1991, the company was awarded a
multi-billion-dollar contract to handle everything for the military, from
laundry to forward base construction and mail delivery. The UK arm last
month won a similar contract to provide logistical support for the UK armed
forces.
The theory behind the arrangement is that it is better - and cheaper for the
government - to leave non-military tasks to private companies such as KBR so
that soldiers can get on with the fighting.
To some, however, the war in Iraq and its aftermath has left the company
looking more like a profiteer than a patriot. Halliburton's revenue soared
63 per cent in the past quarter, largely as a result of its work for the US
government in Iraq.
Halliburton's problems began even before Saddam Hussein was toppled, when it
was revealed that the company had been secretly awarded a contract by the US
Army Corps of Engineers to extinguish oil well fires and manage Iraq's oil
industry. The deal was potentially worth up to $7bn (£3.8bn, €5.6bn).
The Pentagon said KBR was selected without competition because of the
urgency of the task and the need for secrecy. It promised that the contract
was a temporary "bridge" that would be replaced shortly in a more open and
competitive bidding process, and that the company stood to earn much less
than the maximum figure.
But that replacement was delayed repeatedly until January, by which time
Halliburton had reaped more than $3bn for repairing Iraq's creaking oil
industry. Halliburton then won one of the two new oil infrastructure
contracts, worth $1.2bn.
While that controversy has died down, other, potentially more serious ones
have emerged. In December, Pentagon auditors claimed that the company
overcharged it by $61m for petrol and other fuel that Halliburton imported
from Kuwait. The Kuwaiti supplier, Altanmia Commercial Marketing, charged
KBR more than double the price that a separate Army group was paying for oil
from Turkey.
Halliburton insists it was directed to use the Kuwaiti company by the Army
Corps of Engineers and supplied the fuel at the best price under the
circumstances. It does not appear to have pocketed any money from the high
charges but, instead, to have passed them on to the government. Last week,
the Pentagon launched a criminal investigation into the matter.
Even Halliburton's dishing up of "good ol' American food" to troops has
proved controversial. The company has suspended nearly $175m in bills to the
Pentagon for feeding US soldiers until a dispute over possible overcharging
for meals can be settled.
It was also recently forced to return $6.3m to the military after
acknowledging that "one, or perhaps two" former employees had accepted
kickbacks from Kuwaiti suppliers.
In addition, the US Treasury has reopened an investigation into whether
Halliburton violated US sanctions against Iran and Libya by doing business
with the countries through a Cayman Islands subsidiary. The Securities and
Exchange Commission is investigating whether an accounting practice
introduced at the time the company was run by Mr Cheney was legal. And a
French judge is investigating whether a consortium, including a Halliburton
subsidiary, illegally bribed Nigerian officials to secure a contract to
build one of the world's largest liquefied natural gas facilities (see
below). Halliburton denies wrongdoing in connection with all investigations.
"I'm starting to wonder if this is a company on the verge of an ethical
nervous breakdown," says William Hartung, a policy professor at the New
School university, taking stock of the multiple investigations.
The thorn in the side of one of the world's largest military contractors is
Henry Waxman, the Democratic congressman from California. Mr Waxman and his
staff on the government affairs committee uncovered several potential abuses
by the company in Iraq and called them to the attention of the media. The
committee lacks subpoena power and has only two full-time investigators but
it has successfully carried out an unrelenting letter-writing campaign to
the Corps of Engineers, which awarded the contracts and was responsible for
checking them.
Mr Waxman's criticism - often dismissed by Republican critics as partisan -
was given a big boost last month when Henry Bunting, then working as a
procurement expert for KBR in Kuwait, agreed to come forward as a
whistle-blower. Mr Bunting, a Vietnam veteran and registered Republican,
made a compelling witness at last month's Democrat-sponsored hearing on
Capitol Hill, in which lawmakers took turns examining an orange gym towel
embroidered with the letters "KBR" and expressing contempt for it.
This seemingly innocuous item was originally purchased by KBR for one of the
recreation centres it operates in Baghdad for US troops. To the legislators,
the towel is a symbol of all that is wrong with Halliburton.
The fancy monogram, according to Mr Bunting, roughly tripled the price of
the towel - a cost that was ultimately passed on to the federal government.
This little extravagance was in keeping with the company's unofficial motto,
Mr Bunting said, which was "Don't worry about price" - since US taxpayers
were footing the bill. If, as Mr Bunting maintained, there is a culture of
overcharging at Halliburton, perhaps the government shares some of the
blame. In recent years, the US government has farmed out a growing range of
tasks, once performed by soldiers, to private companies. Yet, some contend,
scrutiny of these contracts is woefully inadequate.
The US Congress audit arm found last year that, though military members were
generally satisfied with contractors' performance, "broader [scrutiny] is
lacking in key areas". The General Accounting Office also found "inadequate
training for staff responsible for overseeing contractors".
A second problem is that the arrangements under which companies are paid
provide no incentive to save taxpayers' money. At present, most government
contracts of the type Halliburton takes on are on a "cost-plus" basis - that
is, the US government will reimburse the company's expenses and pay a
percentage on top. The result is that the more a company spends on a job,
the more profit it makes.
Halliburton maintains that contracts are subject to rigorous scrutiny. The
company says it employs 54 auditors, who "continually audit financial
aspects of the company operations". In addition, the company has "300
warranted procurement specialists supporting its government business".
But Mr Bunting - a former procurement specialist himself - testified that
during nearly four months in Kuwait, not a single auditor crossed his path.
Conversely, the arrangement provides relatively small gains for contractors
such as Halliburton that must bid against each other by cutting their profit
margins. Although the company's contracting work for the government usually
makes up more than half its revenues, it accounts for no more than a quarter
of its profits.
Given the risk to Halliburton's reputation of being viewed as an operational
arm of the US government, some securities analysts question whether it would
not be in Halliburton's interest to jettison KBR and return to its
traditional work of providing oil services.
Halliburton executives argue that government contracting provides steady,
risk-free work. "While the engineering and construction arm of the company
generates less profit than the energy services group, it also offers a good
offset to the cyclical nature of the oil and gas industry," Mr Lesar tells
the Financial Times.
John Olson, analyst at the US investment bank Sanders Morris Harris,
generally agrees with that strategy, but suspects that the political
controversy surrounding KBR's government contracts is starting to have an
impact with portfolio managers holding Halliburton stock.
Still, Randy Harl, KBR president, has vowed to persevere: "We will continue
to support the soldiers even though the price of this mission is the cost of
having to defend ourselves at home."
Halliburton faces a gamut of investigations into its conduct, many of which
are being seized on by Democrats in the run-up to the presidential election.
But it is the investigation with which the US electorate is least familiar
that arguably poses the greatest risk to the White House.
The probe centres on a series of payments totalling $180m (£97m, €145m), by
a consortium that includes Halliburton's KBR subsidiary, to a London-based
middleman between 1995 and 2002.
It is the only significant inquiry that centres on acts alleged to have
taken place while Dick Cheney, US vice-president, was at the helm of the
company. And the investigation is the only one occurring outside the
auspices of the US government.
While the US Justice Department is investigating, the case has been most
vigorously pursued by a French magistrate. The French press has reported
that Judge Renaud van Ruymbeke is looking at whether charges should be
brought against Mr Cheney for any misuse of funds that may have occurred.
Nigerian authorities are also investigating.
The French judge is looking into whether - as a former director of the
consortium has contended - the payments were funnelled to Nigerian officials
as bribes to secure contracts to build the Nigeria Liquefied Natural Gas
project (NLNG).
TSKJ, the consortium building the massive plant off the coast of Nigeria,
has denied the accusations. The company is a joint venture between
Halliburton's KBR, France's Technip, Snamprogetti of Italy and Japan's JGC.
Investment in NLNG has already surpassed $9bn and will reach $11bn-$12bn by
2006, in what is already one of the largest such projects in the world.
In Nigeria, some observers have raised questions over the timing of a big
new contract awarded to TSKJ in 1999 to expand NLNG's processing capacity by
50 per cent. The award was approved by NLNG in February that year, shortly
before the return to civilian rule in May.
"It was signed very quickly," says one senior government official.
All the companies involved have argued they were not at fault - but none has
categorically denied that the alleged bribery took place.
NLNG, a joint venture between the Nigerian government and oil
multinationals, says it was satisfied that correct procedures were followed
in arranging the 1999 contract with TSKJ to expand the gas project. The
company, which has paid TSKJ undisclosed sums for several building projects,
says it has no knowledge of payments made by the consortium in the course of
its work.
Royal Dutch/Shell, the leading private sector shareholder in the NLNG
project, told the Financial Times this year that NLNG had investigated the
matter and that no further action was warranted.
Technip declined to comment on the allegations, although the company has
previously denied making any "secret" payments.
Halliburton, meanwhile, says it has "no basis to assume that any of its
employees" have violated US laws prohibiting foreign bribery, but is
co-operating with authorities and has "undertaken an examination" of this
issue.
Unprompted, Halliburton also said by e-mail: "Mr Cheney is no longer
affiliated with the company and no one here has contacted the vice-president
or his office on this matter."
Mar 5th 2004, 8:52 am
#52
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Comparative French standard of living improvements
On 5/03/04 19:52, in article [email protected],
"[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote:
> Who says you have to be at death's door? You can go anytime you want.
> And you might wait a couple of hours instead of years like in Europe
> to get your care.
Have you even been in Paris and called SOS medicins? They are in
you apartment within 30 minutes. That is not emergency care
but guess what, a "house call". Do they exist in the US?
SAMU is faster.
Try and get yourself informed before you write nonsense.
Earl
"[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote:
> Who says you have to be at death's door? You can go anytime you want.
> And you might wait a couple of hours instead of years like in Europe
> to get your care.
Have you even been in Paris and called SOS medicins? They are in
you apartment within 30 minutes. That is not emergency care
but guess what, a "house call". Do they exist in the US?
SAMU is faster.
Try and get yourself informed before you write nonsense.
Earl
Mar 5th 2004, 9:43 am
#53
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Comparative French standard of living improvements
<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Fri, 5 Mar 2004 19:13:38 -0000, "Keith Willshaw"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> Well, that's your cover. I can go to my doctor here anytime and see
> him without any deductibles at all. Just a minimal copay.
Copay doesnt exist here
> And
> housecalls are routine in rural areas for the same reasons. In an
> urban or suburban area what's the problem with going to the office?
Ask an 80 year old woman with arthritis
Keith
news:[email protected]...
> On Fri, 5 Mar 2004 19:13:38 -0000, "Keith Willshaw"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> Well, that's your cover. I can go to my doctor here anytime and see
> him without any deductibles at all. Just a minimal copay.
Copay doesnt exist here
> And
> housecalls are routine in rural areas for the same reasons. In an
> urban or suburban area what's the problem with going to the office?
Ask an 80 year old woman with arthritis
Keith
Mar 5th 2004, 9:47 am
#54
Guest
Posts: n/a
Comparative French standard of living improvements
Dans l'article <[email protected]>, Mxsmanic
<[email protected]> a écrit :
> Donna Evleth writes:
>> I do not consider that money is a prerequisite for "having a life", as you
>> put it.
> Then I presume you've never had to do without it.
You're right, I never have. On the other hand, the individual who
responded to me seemed to indicate (perhaps I misconstrued) that unless you
are rich-rich-rich, as in filthy rich, you cannot have a life.
To make it crystal clear. My daughter has finally come to understand my
definition of rich (she's only 43 now). It is: you have an unforeseen
financial emergency in a given month: your car - or your central heat - or
your teeth - breaks down in a given month, and you can afford to fix it
right away without 1) depleting all your savings; 2) cutting back
drastically on your lifestyle, like eating spaghetti for a couple of weeks;
3) going into debt.
By that definition I am rich.
Donna Evleth
<[email protected]> a écrit :
> Donna Evleth writes:
>> I do not consider that money is a prerequisite for "having a life", as you
>> put it.
> Then I presume you've never had to do without it.
You're right, I never have. On the other hand, the individual who
responded to me seemed to indicate (perhaps I misconstrued) that unless you
are rich-rich-rich, as in filthy rich, you cannot have a life.
To make it crystal clear. My daughter has finally come to understand my
definition of rich (she's only 43 now). It is: you have an unforeseen
financial emergency in a given month: your car - or your central heat - or
your teeth - breaks down in a given month, and you can afford to fix it
right away without 1) depleting all your savings; 2) cutting back
drastically on your lifestyle, like eating spaghetti for a couple of weeks;
3) going into debt.
By that definition I am rich.
Donna Evleth
Mar 5th 2004, 9:58 am
#55
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Comparative French standard of living improvements
Earl Evleth writes:
> Have you even been in Paris and called SOS medicins? They are in
> you apartment within 30 minutes. That is not emergency care
> but guess what, a "house call". Do they exist in the US?
Are they free?
> SAMU is faster.
Never had the misfortune to need SAMU, but I've seen French paramedics
arrive in record time. However, Parisian fire and paramedic services
are known to be among the best in the world (at least by people who
follow such things).
--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.
> Have you even been in Paris and called SOS medicins? They are in
> you apartment within 30 minutes. That is not emergency care
> but guess what, a "house call". Do they exist in the US?
Are they free?
> SAMU is faster.
Never had the misfortune to need SAMU, but I've seen French paramedics
arrive in record time. However, Parisian fire and paramedic services
are known to be among the best in the world (at least by people who
follow such things).
--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.
Mar 5th 2004, 10:09 am
#56
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Comparative French standard of living improvements
Donna Evleth writes:
> By that definition I am rich.
You don't even want to hear my definition.
===
Luke Skywalker: She's rich.
Han Solo: Rich?
Skywalker: Rich. Powerful. Listen, if you were to rescue her, the reward
would be ...
Solo: What?
Skywalker: Well, more money than you can imagine.
Solo: I don't know ... I can imagine quite a bit.
--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.
> By that definition I am rich.
You don't even want to hear my definition.
===
Luke Skywalker: She's rich.
Han Solo: Rich?
Skywalker: Rich. Powerful. Listen, if you were to rescue her, the reward
would be ...
Solo: What?
Skywalker: Well, more money than you can imagine.
Solo: I don't know ... I can imagine quite a bit.
--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.
Mar 5th 2004, 10:09 am
#57
Guest
Posts: n/a
Comparative French standard of living improvements
Dans l'article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] a écrit :
> Not
> to mention that they then get to wait endlessly in line for any
> treatment other than an emergency. Sometimes for years. What good is
> the theory of universal coverage if, in fact, when you want it you
> can't get it?
I have chronic colitis. Periodically I get excruciating cramps, always in
the middle of the night. It's not life threatening, however. And everyone
knows this. So, you're telling me that for this non-emergency condition, I
wait for years here in France to be treated.
In fact, what I do is call SOS Médecins. These are roving doctors, who
patrol all night, and are dispatched to the homes of persons in distress.
Like me. I call. Now, since I am a repeat customer, I am on their
computer, and they don't ask me a lot of questions anymore. They know who I
am and what my problem is. They tell me the doctor will be there within the
hour. In fact it's usually more like 20 minutes. I do not have to get up,
get dressed, go out in the cold (remember I am in horrible pain) and wait
around for hours in someone's emergency room. The doctor comes, examines me
in my own bedroom in my own bed, gives me the shot I need to stop the
cramps, and I go back to sleep. I check in with my regular doctor the next
day (yes, I do get an appointment the next day).
Don't tell me I don't get universal coverage when I want it. There are
places in this world where my only alternative would be a hospital emergency
room. When I visit those places, I carry codeine tablets with me. But I
don't really like to use them, because when I do I sleep all day the next
day and don't enjoy my vacation.
Donna Evleth
[email protected] a écrit :
> Not
> to mention that they then get to wait endlessly in line for any
> treatment other than an emergency. Sometimes for years. What good is
> the theory of universal coverage if, in fact, when you want it you
> can't get it?
I have chronic colitis. Periodically I get excruciating cramps, always in
the middle of the night. It's not life threatening, however. And everyone
knows this. So, you're telling me that for this non-emergency condition, I
wait for years here in France to be treated.
In fact, what I do is call SOS Médecins. These are roving doctors, who
patrol all night, and are dispatched to the homes of persons in distress.
Like me. I call. Now, since I am a repeat customer, I am on their
computer, and they don't ask me a lot of questions anymore. They know who I
am and what my problem is. They tell me the doctor will be there within the
hour. In fact it's usually more like 20 minutes. I do not have to get up,
get dressed, go out in the cold (remember I am in horrible pain) and wait
around for hours in someone's emergency room. The doctor comes, examines me
in my own bedroom in my own bed, gives me the shot I need to stop the
cramps, and I go back to sleep. I check in with my regular doctor the next
day (yes, I do get an appointment the next day).
Don't tell me I don't get universal coverage when I want it. There are
places in this world where my only alternative would be a hospital emergency
room. When I visit those places, I carry codeine tablets with me. But I
don't really like to use them, because when I do I sleep all day the next
day and don't enjoy my vacation.
Donna Evleth
Mar 5th 2004, 10:23 am
#58
Guest
Posts: n/a
Comparative French standard of living improvements
Dans l'article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] a écrit :
> Well, that's your cover. I can go to my doctor here anytime and see
> him without any deductibles at all. Just a minimal copay. And
> housecalls are routine in rural areas for the same reasons. In an
> urban or suburban area what's the problem with going to the office?
I already posted on this above, but this calls for a repeat. Do tell me
about your "minimum copay". How much is it? I can go to my doctor here in
France anytime and see him without any "deductibles" OR "minimum copay." He
charges 20 euros per visit. Our universal health coverage covers this 100%.
This same doctor will also make housecalls - right here in the city - if the
occasion warrants it. Agreed, we do have to pay something for that.
What's the problem with going to the office in an urban or suburban area?
Try excruciating pain from chronic colitis, in my case a hereditary
condition.
Donna Evleth
[email protected] a écrit :
> Well, that's your cover. I can go to my doctor here anytime and see
> him without any deductibles at all. Just a minimal copay. And
> housecalls are routine in rural areas for the same reasons. In an
> urban or suburban area what's the problem with going to the office?
I already posted on this above, but this calls for a repeat. Do tell me
about your "minimum copay". How much is it? I can go to my doctor here in
France anytime and see him without any "deductibles" OR "minimum copay." He
charges 20 euros per visit. Our universal health coverage covers this 100%.
This same doctor will also make housecalls - right here in the city - if the
occasion warrants it. Agreed, we do have to pay something for that.
What's the problem with going to the office in an urban or suburban area?
Try excruciating pain from chronic colitis, in my case a hereditary
condition.
Donna Evleth
Mar 5th 2004, 11:35 am
#59
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Comparative French standard of living improvements
On Fri, 05 Mar 2004 22:52:17 +0100, Earl Evleth <[email protected]>
wrote:
>On 5/03/04 19:52, in article [email protected],
>"[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Who says you have to be at death's door? You can go anytime you want.
>> And you might wait a couple of hours instead of years like in Europe
>> to get your care.
>Have you even been in Paris and called SOS medicins?
N o.
They are in
>you apartment within 30 minutes. That is not emergency care
>but guess what, a "house call". Do they exist in the US?
Of course. It's called an ambulance service that takes you where you
need to go. Usually arrives in 10 minutes.
>SAMU is faster.
Says who? You?
>Try and get yourself informed before you write nonsense.
You're the one writing the nonsense. Consistently and endlessly.
Just like this. And the guy above who thinks you have to be at
death's door to go to an emergency room. Along with your silly Cheney
postings.
wrote:
>On 5/03/04 19:52, in article [email protected],
>"[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Who says you have to be at death's door? You can go anytime you want.
>> And you might wait a couple of hours instead of years like in Europe
>> to get your care.
>Have you even been in Paris and called SOS medicins?
N o.
They are in
>you apartment within 30 minutes. That is not emergency care
>but guess what, a "house call". Do they exist in the US?
Of course. It's called an ambulance service that takes you where you
need to go. Usually arrives in 10 minutes.
>SAMU is faster.
Says who? You?
>Try and get yourself informed before you write nonsense.
You're the one writing the nonsense. Consistently and endlessly.
Just like this. And the guy above who thinks you have to be at
death's door to go to an emergency room. Along with your silly Cheney
postings.
Mar 5th 2004, 11:36 am
#60
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Comparative French standard of living improvements
On Fri, 5 Mar 2004 22:43:07 -0000, "Keith Willshaw"
<[email protected]> wrote:
><[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> On Fri, 5 Mar 2004 19:13:38 -0000, "Keith Willshaw"
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Well, that's your cover. I can go to my doctor here anytime and see
>> him without any deductibles at all. Just a minimal copay.
>Copay doesnt exist here
No just endless, expensive prepay.
>> And
>> housecalls are routine in rural areas for the same reasons. In an
>> urban or suburban area what's the problem with going to the office?
>Ask an 80 year old woman with arthritis
They get what's called home healthcare which you would know if you
knew anything.
<[email protected]> wrote:
><[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> On Fri, 5 Mar 2004 19:13:38 -0000, "Keith Willshaw"
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Well, that's your cover. I can go to my doctor here anytime and see
>> him without any deductibles at all. Just a minimal copay.
>Copay doesnt exist here
No just endless, expensive prepay.
>> And
>> housecalls are routine in rural areas for the same reasons. In an
>> urban or suburban area what's the problem with going to the office?
>Ask an 80 year old woman with arthritis
They get what's called home healthcare which you would know if you
knew anything.
