Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers

  • Thread starter Dianelos Georgoudis
  • Start date
This site contains affiliate links for which LandyZone may be compensated if you make a purchase.
Matthew Russotto wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>,
> Dan Gates <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>Get a life! The same low-lifes that crowd your "County" ERs for free
>>medicare are crowding our ER for their freebies.
>
>
> Medicaid.
>
>
>>Most people using hospital services are their because they need to be!
>>
>>Lets compare, shall we?
>> Can. US
>>Life expectancy at birth? 82.7 66.9
>
>
> Wrong. US life expectancy at birth was 77.2 in 2001. Canada's was 79.2
> in 2001.
>
>
>>Inpatient Care Beds/1,000 pop 20 17
>
>
> 3.9 and 3.6 respectively.
>
>
>>Acute Care Beds/1,000 pop 35 29
>
>
> 4.0 and 3.7 respectively
>
>
>>I could go on, but I won't.
>
>
> If you want to just make stuff up, you can certainly do so.
>
>


You are correct about the changes that you made to my numbers. I wasn't
making them up though. I was looking at an "Appendix 2" of a document
that had the numbers in it that I quoted. I can't figure out how they
came up with the first numbers I used. When looking up some further
documentation I did discover that "Appendix 1" had numbers more in
keeping with your corrections. My numbers are for '98, '99 though.

Thanks

Dan

 
Please stop your crossposting.

"Dan Gates" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Matthew Russotto wrote:
> > In article <[email protected]>,
> > Dan Gates <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >>Get a life! The same low-lifes that crowd your "County" ERs for free
> >>medicare are crowding our ER for their freebies.
> >
> >
> > Medicaid.
> >
> >
> >>Most people using hospital services are their because they need to be!
> >>
> >>Lets compare, shall we?
> >> Can. US
> >>Life expectancy at birth? 82.7 66.9
> >
> >
> > Wrong. US life expectancy at birth was 77.2 in 2001. Canada's was 79.2
> > in 2001.
> >
> >
> >>Inpatient Care Beds/1,000 pop 20 17
> >
> >
> > 3.9 and 3.6 respectively.
> >
> >
> >>Acute Care Beds/1,000 pop 35 29
> >
> >
> > 4.0 and 3.7 respectively
> >
> >
> >>I could go on, but I won't.
> >
> >
> > If you want to just make stuff up, you can certainly do so.
> >
> >
>
>
> You are correct about the changes that you made to my numbers. I wasn't
> making them up though. I was looking at an "Appendix 2" of a document
> that had the numbers in it that I quoted. I can't figure out how they
> came up with the first numbers I used. When looking up some further
> documentation I did discover that "Appendix 1" had numbers more in
> keeping with your corrections. My numbers are for '98, '99 though.
>
> Thanks
>
> Dan
>


 
In article <[email protected]>,
"The Ancient One" <[email protected]> wrote:

> Yes I have. I also have friends in Canada, England, Scotland, Japan and
> Germany, and I have discussed their "free" healthcare with them many times.

So?


-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
 
In article <[email protected]>,
Dan Gates <[email protected]> wrote:

> You are correct about the changes that you made to my numbers. I wasn't
> making them up though. I was looking at an "Appendix 2" of a document
> that had the numbers in it that I quoted. I can't figure out how they
> came up with the first numbers I used. When looking up some further
> documentation I did discover that "Appendix 1" had numbers more in
> keeping with your corrections. My numbers are for '98, '99 though.
>
> Thanks
>
> Dan

So?


-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
 

"Bill Putney" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
>
> "Daniel J. Stern" wrote:
> >
> > So, let's summarize. The question is "Why should marriage be restricted
to
> > opposite-sex couples?" and the very best, most cogent response you can
> > come up with is "Because marriage is restricted to opposite-sex
couples."
> >
> > DS
>
> Exactly. Or maybe the more cogent response would be "Because a same-sex
> relationship is, by definiton, not marriage since marriage is defined as
> a certain relationship between opposite-sex couples".
>
> In the same way that, if someone were to ask "Why isn't cutting down a
> tree not murder", you would answer "Because cutting down a tree is not
> murder" (to use your straw-man circular argument), or perhaps "Because
> the word 'murder' is defined as the killing of a human being; trees are
> not human beings; therefore cutting down a tree is not murder", and any
> reasonable person would get it because they know that the word "murder"
> has a meaning in the English language, and so does "marriage".
>

Traditional marriage with it's meaningfulness for families (read children)
serves a meaningful purpose to the benefit of all of us, which is providing
a stable place for children to be raised to be production members of
society. It ADDS to society. Gay marriage does what? It allows gay
couples the benefits of marriage (inheretence, insurance, etc.) but serves
no other useful purpose to society. And NO I'm NOT arguing against marriage
for childless couples.

I don't really even buy the argument that there are benefits gay couples
can't have without marriage. To me, it's part of an agenda to normalize
gays in society in every way, that being the end, not that there's an end or
purpose for gay marriage itself. When we devalue the family unit then
marriage becomes less relevent and it doesn't really matter who or what you
marry and the argument devolves to "rights" rather than benefit to society.
This shouldn't be a civil rights argument.


> Bill Putney
> (to reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
> address with "x")
>
>
> -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
> http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
> -----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----


 

"Jeepers" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>,
> "The Ancient One" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > Yes I have. I also have friends in Canada, England, Scotland, Japan and
> > Germany, and I have discussed their "free" healthcare with them many
times.
>
> So?
>

He asked, I answered, that's the way it works. Your one word post simply
created a new post to answer your post, and so it continues. Hope you're
happy now.




 

"Jeepers" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>,
> "The Ancient One" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > For a local example just look at the VA hospitals.
>
> Your Point?

Government control of healthcare results in poorer healthcare than private
control, but then you knew that already.

>
>
> -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
> http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
> -----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----


 
Please stop your crossposting! This has gone on to long!

"David J. Allen" <dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Bill Putney" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> >
> >
> > "Daniel J. Stern" wrote:
> > >
> > > So, let's summarize. The question is "Why should marriage be
restricted
> to
> > > opposite-sex couples?" and the very best, most cogent response you can
> > > come up with is "Because marriage is restricted to opposite-sex
> couples."
> > >
> > > DS
> >
> > Exactly. Or maybe the more cogent response would be "Because a same-sex
> > relationship is, by definiton, not marriage since marriage is defined as
> > a certain relationship between opposite-sex couples".
> >
> > In the same way that, if someone were to ask "Why isn't cutting down a
> > tree not murder", you would answer "Because cutting down a tree is not
> > murder" (to use your straw-man circular argument), or perhaps "Because
> > the word 'murder' is defined as the killing of a human being; trees are
> > not human beings; therefore cutting down a tree is not murder", and any
> > reasonable person would get it because they know that the word "murder"
> > has a meaning in the English language, and so does "marriage".
> >
>
> Traditional marriage with it's meaningfulness for families (read children)
> serves a meaningful purpose to the benefit of all of us, which is
providing
> a stable place for children to be raised to be production members of
> society. It ADDS to society. Gay marriage does what? It allows gay
> couples the benefits of marriage (inheretence, insurance, etc.) but serves
> no other useful purpose to society. And NO I'm NOT arguing against
marriage
> for childless couples.
>
> I don't really even buy the argument that there are benefits gay couples
> can't have without marriage. To me, it's part of an agenda to normalize
> gays in society in every way, that being the end, not that there's an end
or
> purpose for gay marriage itself. When we devalue the family unit then
> marriage becomes less relevent and it doesn't really matter who or what
you
> marry and the argument devolves to "rights" rather than benefit to
society.
> This shouldn't be a civil rights argument.
>
>
> > Bill Putney
> > (to reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
> > address with "x")
> >
> >
> > -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
> > http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
> > -----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
>
>


 

"vlj" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "C. E. White" <[email protected]> sez:
> <snip>
> >It is not a marriage. <snip>
>
> Marriage started out as a property rite of ancient societies. It was then
> co-opted by the church(es). Then governments got into the act when the
> church was no longer one in the same as the government.
>
> Sticking to a dogmatic ritual that had its roots in protection of property
> and bloodlines when the involved had little say or choice in the matter
and
> then foist that definition on everyone at large in today's society is most
> medieval ...
>

Sounds like the first lecture in Feminism 101. Talk about dogma! The
purpose of marriage, even to patriarchal societies, is still vital for the
purpose of raising children.


> VLJ
> --
>
>


 
Stop cross posting!!!!!!!

David J. Allen wrote:
> "Bill Putney" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>>
>>"Daniel J. Stern" wrote:
>>
>>>So, let's summarize. The question is "Why should marriage be restricted
>
> to
>
>>>opposite-sex couples?" and the very best, most cogent response you can
>>>come up with is "Because marriage is restricted to opposite-sex
>
> couples."
>
>>>DS
>>
>>Exactly. Or maybe the more cogent response would be "Because a same-sex
>>relationship is, by definiton, not marriage since marriage is defined as
>>a certain relationship between opposite-sex couples".
>>
>>In the same way that, if someone were to ask "Why isn't cutting down a
>>tree not murder", you would answer "Because cutting down a tree is not
>>murder" (to use your straw-man circular argument), or perhaps "Because
>>the word 'murder' is defined as the killing of a human being; trees are
>>not human beings; therefore cutting down a tree is not murder", and any
>>reasonable person would get it because they know that the word "murder"
>>has a meaning in the English language, and so does "marriage".
>>
>
>
> Traditional marriage with it's meaningfulness for families (read children)
> serves a meaningful purpose to the benefit of all of us, which is providing
> a stable place for children to be raised to be production members of
> society. It ADDS to society. Gay marriage does what? It allows gay
> couples the benefits of marriage (inheretence, insurance, etc.) but serves
> no other useful purpose to society. And NO I'm NOT arguing against marriage
> for childless couples.
>
> I don't really even buy the argument that there are benefits gay couples
> can't have without marriage. To me, it's part of an agenda to normalize
> gays in society in every way, that being the end, not that there's an end or
> purpose for gay marriage itself. When we devalue the family unit then
> marriage becomes less relevent and it doesn't really matter who or what you
> marry and the argument devolves to "rights" rather than benefit to society.
> This shouldn't be a civil rights argument.
>
>
>
>>Bill Putney
>>(to reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
>>address with "x")
>>
>>
>>-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
>>http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
>>-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
>
>
>

 
Please stop abusing groups with your cross posts.

Mike

The Ancient One wrote:
>
> "David J. Allen" <dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> >
> > "Daniel J. Stern" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:p[email protected]...
> > > On Wed, 3 Dec 2003, Bill Putney wrote:
> > >
> > > > Canada's healthcare system sucks.
> > >
> > > I daresay you don't know what you're talking about. I'm an American
> living
> > > here in Canada, and guess what? Canada's healthcare system is *vastly*
> > > better than the US system in the vast majority of cases. Are there
> > > exceptions? Surely. There's no such thing as perfection. But the
> Canadian
> > > system does a much better job of handling most of the healthcare needs
> of
> > > most of the people at a reasonable cost.
> > >
> > > DS
> > >
> >
> > That's great. My experience in a French system was that it did fine for
> > everyday stuff: bandages, pain killers, antibiotics. Even then it could
> be
> > a littel scary depending on the doctor you see. I was in an accident and
> > hurt my hand and wrist. No big deal, but I was rushed to the hospital in
> a
> > scary ambulance ride (for sprain wrist!) and then when I got there, they
> > took my vitals and then took care of my hand. All went well enough until
> > the doctor saw my pulse rate. She thought is was too slow, dangerously
> so,
> > and so perscribed some pills (in a plastic bag) to speed my heart up.
> When
> > I got home I promply threw them away. I think my heart rate was in the
> > 50's, which is not too slow. I felt great. No different than I ever did.
> >
> > A friend of mine had a more serious condition and even though he had the
> > money to see a private doctor, went to the clinic. He went home in a box
> > because they didn't misdiagnosed his condition.
> >
> > The problem was, in my view, that the best doctors wouldn't come near the
> > socialized system, which paid poorly and rationed care. You cannot avoid
> > the trade-offs of a socialized system and a private competitive system. A
> > private system will leave some behind. A socialized system will give
> > everyone less quality and quantity overall. It's true with any "product".
>
> For a local example just look at the VA hospitals.
 
In article <TDLzb.23548$o9.11675@fed1read07>,
"Nick N" <[email protected]> wrote:

> Please stop your crossposting.

Or what?


-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
 
In article <[email protected]>,
"David J. Allen" <dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote:

> This shouldn't be a civil rights argument.

B.S.


-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
 
Please stop abusing groups with your cross posts.

Mike

"David J. Allen" wrote:
>
> "Bill Putney" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> >
> >
> > "Daniel J. Stern" wrote:
> > >
> > > So, let's summarize. The question is "Why should marriage be restricted
> to
> > > opposite-sex couples?" and the very best, most cogent response you can
> > > come up with is "Because marriage is restricted to opposite-sex
> couples."
> > >
> > > DS
> >
> > Exactly. Or maybe the more cogent response would be "Because a same-sex
> > relationship is, by definiton, not marriage since marriage is defined as
> > a certain relationship between opposite-sex couples".
> >
> > In the same way that, if someone were to ask "Why isn't cutting down a
> > tree not murder", you would answer "Because cutting down a tree is not
> > murder" (to use your straw-man circular argument), or perhaps "Because
> > the word 'murder' is defined as the killing of a human being; trees are
> > not human beings; therefore cutting down a tree is not murder", and any
> > reasonable person would get it because they know that the word "murder"
> > has a meaning in the English language, and so does "marriage".
> >
>
> Traditional marriage with it's meaningfulness for families (read children)
> serves a meaningful purpose to the benefit of all of us, which is providing
> a stable place for children to be raised to be production members of
> society. It ADDS to society. Gay marriage does what? It allows gay
> couples the benefits of marriage (inheretence, insurance, etc.) but serves
> no other useful purpose to society. And NO I'm NOT arguing against marriage
> for childless couples.
>
> I don't really even buy the argument that there are benefits gay couples
> can't have without marriage. To me, it's part of an agenda to normalize
> gays in society in every way, that being the end, not that there's an end or
> purpose for gay marriage itself. When we devalue the family unit then
> marriage becomes less relevent and it doesn't really matter who or what you
> marry and the argument devolves to "rights" rather than benefit to society.
> This shouldn't be a civil rights argument.
>
> > Bill Putney
> > (to reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
> > address with "x")
> >
> >
> > -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
> > http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
> > -----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
 
In article <jULzb.23551$o9.20797@fed1read07>,
"Nick N" <[email protected]> wrote:

> Please stop your crossposting! This has gone on to long!

Shut up.


-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
 
Please stop abuisng groups with your cross posts.

Mike

Dan Gates wrote:
>
> Matthew Russotto wrote:
> > In article <[email protected]>,
> > Dan Gates <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >>Get a life! The same low-lifes that crowd your "County" ERs for free
> >>medicare are crowding our ER for their freebies.
> >
> >
> > Medicaid.
> >
> >
> >>Most people using hospital services are their because they need to be!
> >>
> >>Lets compare, shall we?
> >> Can. US
> >>Life expectancy at birth? 82.7 66.9
> >
> >
> > Wrong. US life expectancy at birth was 77.2 in 2001. Canada's was 79.2
> > in 2001.
> >
> >
> >>Inpatient Care Beds/1,000 pop 20 17
> >
> >
> > 3.9 and 3.6 respectively.
> >
> >
> >>Acute Care Beds/1,000 pop 35 29
> >
> >
> > 4.0 and 3.7 respectively
> >
> >
> >>I could go on, but I won't.
> >
> >
> > If you want to just make stuff up, you can certainly do so.
> >
> >
>
> You are correct about the changes that you made to my numbers. I wasn't
> making them up though. I was looking at an "Appendix 2" of a document
> that had the numbers in it that I quoted. I can't figure out how they
> came up with the first numbers I used. When looking up some further
> documentation I did discover that "Appendix 1" had numbers more in
> keeping with your corrections. My numbers are for '98, '99 though.
>
> Thanks
>
> Dan
 
In article <[email protected]>,
"David J. Allen" <dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote:


> Sounds like the first lecture in Feminism 101. Talk about dogma! The
> purpose of marriage, even to patriarchal societies, is still vital for the
> purpose of raising children.
>
>
> > VLJ

How cute, you are a feminazi.


-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
 
Bill Funk wrote:
> On Wed, 03 Dec 03 10:45:58 GMT, [email protected] (Lloyd Parker)
> wrote:

>>But if you replace the carb, then the pistons, then the exhaust, you've got
>>enough of a new engine that you ought to not still have the exemption that old
>>engines get from emissions standards.
>
>
> Why not?
> It's the same block, but better (lower emissions).
> Why do you want to encourage the owner from making it better by adding
> more regulations and costs?
>


Fortunately, even the Environut Proselytization Agency is smarter than
Lloyd....


 
Please stop abusing groups with your cross posts.

Mike

Matthew Russotto wrote:
>
> In article <[email protected]>,
> Dan Gates <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >Get a life! The same low-lifes that crowd your "County" ERs for free
> >medicare are crowding our ER for their freebies.
>
> Medicaid.
>
> >Most people using hospital services are their because they need to be!
> >
> >Lets compare, shall we?
> > Can. US
> >Life expectancy at birth? 82.7 66.9
>
> Wrong. US life expectancy at birth was 77.2 in 2001. Canada's was 79.2
> in 2001.
>
> >Inpatient Care Beds/1,000 pop 20 17
>
> 3.9 and 3.6 respectively.
>
> >Acute Care Beds/1,000 pop 35 29
>
> 4.0 and 3.7 respectively
>
> >I could go on, but I won't.
>
> If you want to just make stuff up, you can certainly do so.
>
> --
> Matthew T. Russotto [email protected]
> "Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice, and moderation in pursuit
> of justice is no virtue." But extreme restriction of liberty in pursuit of
> a modicum of security is a very expensive vice.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

S
Defenders Vs Insurers tomfoolery
Replies
1
Views
4K
lightning
lightning
300bhp/ton
Driven: New Defender - On & Off Road. Is it a Pretender?
2
Replies
30
Views
6K
lightning
lightning
P
Range Rover P38 EKA and BeCM Lockout
Replies
6
Views
5K
Doolinjames
D
natas
Hurricane Dorian survivor.
Replies
8
Views
2K
ProjectX
ProjectX
Alibro
How to recondition a VCU yourself.
15 16 17
Replies
325
Views
46K
Alibro
Alibro
Back
Top