Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers

B

Brandon Sommerville

Guest

• Dec 5, 2003

• #2,261

On Fri, 5 Dec 2003 13:14:05 -0500, "Daniel J. Stern"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>On Fri, 5 Dec 2003, C. E. White wrote:
>
>> Lloyd Parker wrote:
>
>>> How about this? Marriage is a religious ceremony, performed by a
>>> church; the government doesn't use the term "marriage" at all but
>>> "civil unions" for all recognizied unions of 2 adults and grants the
>>> same benefits to all of them.
>
>> Sure, I can live with that.
>
>Same here.
>
>Now Lloyd, CEW and I have agreed on something, so I need to grab up some
>canned food and bottled water and head into the fallout shelter. End times
>are doubtless nigh.

Count me in too, I think I hear the horsemen...
--
Brandon Sommerville
remove ".gov" to e-mail

Definition of "Lottery":
Millions of stupid people contributing
to make one stupid person look smart.

 

D

David J. Allen

Guest

• Dec 5, 2003

• #2,262

"Bill Putney" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
>
> "David J. Allen" wrote:
>
> > "Daniel J. Stern" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news[email protected]...
> > >
> > > Such authorities on the civil rights struggle for blacks as Coretta
Scott
> > > King agree with the analogy.
> > >
> >
> > I don't suppose Clarence Thomas would qualify as a civil rights
authority.
> > Would he?
>
> David, David, David - you should know by now that eqaulity and respect for
black
> people is only for *liberal* black people. You must remember that.
>

Oh! I thought it was about race, not politics! Shame on me.


> 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! =-----

 

B

Brent P

Guest

• Dec 5, 2003

• #2,263

In article <[email protected]>, Daniel J. Stern wrote:

>> You don't have to be elite to get great healthcare in the US.

> You have to be able to afford health insurance. Many Americans can't.

The question should really be not one of wether canada is better or not,
or who can afford the insurance or not. But what is more affordable, the
insurance or the taxes that would be applied in a _US government_ run
system?

Now the person who can afford decent insurance in the USA is woried that
he won't be able to afford the taxes for the same or lesser coverage from
the government.

If I could trust the US government to make a good health care system I
wouldn't be worried, because there could be vast improvements over the
current system in the USA. But these are the same people that can't even
copy an existing good automotive headlamp regulation. The same people
who gave us the 55mph speed limit. The same government that puts people
like joan claybrook in charge of things. Look at the US government's
track record with the existing medical programs they run. It speaks
for itself.

It shouldn't be wether a government run system can be as good or better
than the status quo in the USA, but wether a *US GOVERNMENT* run system
would be better. My answer is that it very most likely would not be.

So, everyone who thinks the *US GOVERNMENT* would make things better
for people in the USA raise your hand and I think we will be done
with this branch.

 

B

Brandon Sommerville

Guest

• Dec 5, 2003

• #2,264

On Fri, 05 Dec 2003 13:24:57 -0600, [email protected]
(Matthew Russotto) wrote:

>In article <[email protected]>,
>Brandon Sommerville <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>It's not quite that simple. If you need a procedure, they evaluate
>>how urgent it is. If it's extremely urgent you get bumped to the top
>>of the list. If it's not so urgent, you get on the waiting list and
>>get done after others who have been waiting longer are processed. If
>>you don't want to wait and can afford it, you go to somewhere that you
>>can pay for the procedure, which is down south. A great system if
>>you're wealthy.
>>
>>I know that no matter what happens, if I blow out my knee I'm going to
>>get an MRI. It may take 8 weeks, but I'll get it and it won't cost me
>>anything extra. Can you say the same thing?
>
>Not exactly. In my case (hip rather than knee, but same idea), it was
>same day (first MRI) and later in the week (second MRI) and it still
>didn't cost me anything extra. There was no urgency in the medical
>sense. The more complex MRA did take a month, because it had to be
>scheduled with both the radiology department and the MRI center. No
>rationing involved.

And if there was no one who needed an MRI I'd get one right away as
well.
--
Brandon Sommerville
remove ".gov" to e-mail

Definition of "Lottery":
Millions of stupid people contributing
to make one stupid person look smart.

 

L

Lloyd Parker

Guest

• Dec 5, 2003

• #2,265

In article <[email protected]>,
"Douglas A. Shrader" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>"Lloyd Parker" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> In article <[email protected]>,
>> "The Ancient One" <[email protected]> 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[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.
>> >
>> >
>> Ask any veteran if he or she would give that up. Please. Then duck.
>
>My Dad was a Veteran Lloyd, he died because the VA cared more about slashing
>costs than providing quality care. Easier, and cheaper, to make an off the
>shoulder diagnosis than to run expensive tests. When he was admitted for
>pnuemonia they finally decided to run some test to see what was causing it
>and found he was riddled with cancer, which any good hospital would have
>detected years earlier. He died 8 days later, at home, even though he begged
>them to let him stay in the hospital. Hospital beds cost money, and they had
>to cut costs, so a dying man was sent home. That is the kind of low quality,
>one kind treats all health system you want Lloyd, and it stinks. Now shut up
>and stop posting your lies and crap on this or any group.
>
>
And if he'd had no insurance or lots of money, how far do you think he would
have gotten in trying to get a private hospital to do this?

 

D

David J. Allen

Guest

• Dec 5, 2003

• #2,266

> >> So what if one of members of the couple is sterile? Should they be
> >> prevented from marrying?
> >
> >That situation doesn't change the argument. The institution of marriage
> >serves society in that it produces productive members of society. It's a
> >productive enterprise. Childless marriage doesn't change that
perspective
> >at all. They represent exceptions to the point of marriage, but don't
> >detract from it. Gay marriage, from it's onset and by definition, won't
> >produce children and shifts the point of marriage from children and
family
> >to gaining marriage benefits (tax, inheritence, insurance, etc.), which
> >doesn't require marriage.
>
> How does a marriage between 2 gays differ in what it "produces" from one
> between 2 senior citizens, for example?
>

Anectodal. The principles behind marriage are what they are and variation
*within* those principles are insignificant. Changing the principles behind
marriage are significant and opens a door that will force us to re-evaluate
the meaning of marriage in ever changing contexts.


> >
> >To me, it seems part of a gay agenda
>
> Yes, and then there's the black agenda to normalize being black, the
Jewish
> agenda to normalize being Jewish, the left-handed agenda to normalize
being
> left-handed...
>

If our society were normalized for race, racial differences would be
abstracted out of all our institutions. Oh, that it were the case!
Unfortunately, the agenda of liberal black groups like the NAACP and what's
his name Farrakhan is to abnormalize race, not normalize it. Abnormal works
both ways.

Normalizing our institutions based on sexual preference is much different,
at least for marriage. It isn't about making it more inclusive, it's about
redefining it. It changes the nature of marriage.


>
> > to normalize homosexuality in our
> >society. By redefining marriage, it's original purpose gets changed.
Where
> >government has historically been generous in it's efforts to protect and
> >nurture marriage and family, that will inevitably change as marriage
becomes
> >less about children and more about civil rights. A big mistake in my
view.
> >
> >> --
> >> Brandon Sommerville
> >> remove ".gov" to e-mail
> >>
> >> Definition of "Lottery":
> >> Millions of stupid people contributing
> >> to make one stupid person look smart.
> >
> >

 

D

Dan Gates

Guest

• Dec 5, 2003

• #2,267

Brent P wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>, Daniel J. Stern wrote:
>
>
>>>You don't have to be elite to get great healthcare in the US.
>
>
>
>>You have to be able to afford health insurance. Many Americans can't.
>
>
> The question should really be not one of wether canada is better or not,
> or who can afford the insurance or not. But what is more affordable, the
> insurance or the taxes that would be applied in a _US government_ run
> system?
>
> Now the person who can afford decent insurance in the USA is woried that
> he won't be able to afford the taxes for the same or lesser coverage from
> the government.
>
> If I could trust the US government to make a good health care system I
> wouldn't be worried, because there could be vast improvements over the
> current system in the USA. But these are the same people that can't even
> copy an existing good automotive headlamp regulation. The same people
> who gave us the 55mph speed limit. The same government that puts people
> like joan claybrook in charge of things. Look at the US government's
> track record with the existing medical programs they run. It speaks
> for itself.
>
> It shouldn't be wether a government run system can be as good or better
> than the status quo in the USA, but wether a *US GOVERNMENT* run system
> would be better. My answer is that it very most likely would not be.
>
> So, everyone who thinks the *US GOVERNMENT* would make things better
> for people in the USA raise your hand and I think we will be done
> with this branch.
>
>

Let's not kid ourselves. Would it were that the collective governments
of the Excited States decided that wholesale health insurance is a good
idea, the physicians, particularly the specialists, would not allow it.

There is no way that they would be able to make the kind of money they
do now under a government-run fee-for-service system.

It is too late for the US of A to go down that road. There is too much
big business involved now. When Canada went there and, I think, the UK
went there, hospitals were run by churches and community groups, you
know, for the good of the people. Doctors worked in exchange for a pig
or a dozen eggs, or at least everyone remembered when that was the case,
a government run and paid for system looked really good to everyone
still does from where I sit), and I and everyone I know can afford to
pay for it if I had to.

Dan

 

M

Matthew Russotto

Guest

• Dec 5, 2003

• #2,268

In article <[email protected]>,
Brandon Sommerville <[email protected]> wrote:
>On Fri, 05 Dec 2003 13:24:57 -0600, [email protected]
>(Matthew Russotto) wrote:
>
>>In article <[email protected]>,
>>Brandon Sommerville <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>I know that no matter what happens, if I blow out my knee I'm going to
>>>get an MRI. It may take 8 weeks, but I'll get it and it won't cost me
>>>anything extra. Can you say the same thing?
>>
>>Not exactly. In my case (hip rather than knee, but same idea), it was
>>same day (first MRI) and later in the week (second MRI) and it still
>>didn't cost me anything extra. There was no urgency in the medical
>>sense. The more complex MRA did take a month, because it had to be
>>scheduled with both the radiology department and the MRI center. No
>>rationing involved.
>
>And if there was no one who needed an MRI I'd get one right away as
>well.

But in the US, we've got enough MRIs to service both the critical needs and
the less-critical needs in a timely manner. Or do you want to hobble
around in pain for 8 weeks longer? (or perhaps MUCH longer in my
case, as it took three studies to diagnose the problem -- and then there's the
issue of waiting periods for non-critical surgery in Canada)
--
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.

 

L

Lloyd Parker

Guest

• Dec 5, 2003

• #2,269

In article <[email protected]>,
"David J. Allen" <dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote:
>
>"Lloyd Parker" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> In article <[email protected]>,
>> "David J. Allen" <dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote:
>
>> >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.
>>
>>
>> So you'd ban marriage between couples if one is infertile? Or too old to
>have
>> children? Or simply don't want children?
>>
>> 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.
>>
>> Yes it does. It provides a stable unit, reduces promiscuity, should
>reduce
>> disease transmission, etc.
>>
>
>Wrong. Marriage "produces" none of those things. Moral, committed people
>do. The existence of childless married couples is irrelevent to the
>institution of marriage and doesn't change what it is and means to society.
>Changing marriage from an insitution whose purpose is to nurture and protect
>families to a grab basket of benefits you want to call "civil rights" is
>what you're arguing for.
>
>> >
>> >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,
>>
>> And heaven forbid you Taliban would have to accept everyone as being
>equal.
>>
>
>Having a little trouble understanding the argument Lloyd? Let me clarify.
>The gay activist agenda is to redefine and rebuild our whole social
>structure to abstract out distinction between sexual preference.

The same thing has been said about blacks, Jews, Catholics, women, etc. The
bigotry doesn't change, it just finds a new group to kick.


> In doing
>so, it has to redefine marriage from what it's been to what they want it to
>be. The method used is to call the "benefits" of marriage "civil rights".
>The error is that the benefits of marriage aren't there because society
>thinks marrieds are more deserving or more equal or more anything to the
>exclusion of unmarrieds. They are there to protect and nurture families,
>especially those with a single wage earner and dependents.

Then why give them to people who get married in their 60s, say?

 

L

Lloyd Parker

Guest

• Dec 5, 2003

• #2,270

In article <[email protected]>,
"David J. Allen" <dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote:
>
>"Lloyd Parker" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> In article <[email protected]>,
>> Bill Funk <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >On Thu, 04 Dec 03 10:09:39 GMT, [email protected] (Lloyd Parker)
>> >wrote:
>> >
>> >>What does that mean? There are plenty of innovations. Airbus now is
>> outdoing
>> >>Boeing in orders, for example. Why? Innovative ideas.
>> >
>> >Sure.
>> >Like Britain, France & Germany giving economic incentives (money) to
>> >their airlines to buy Airbus.
>>
>> Not nowadays. WTO would slap that down.
>>
>> >That's on top of the economic incentives those governments gave to
>> >Airbus (subsidies) to help Airbus products.
>>
>> They gave startup subsidies, all of which Airbus paid back, as it was
>required
>> to.
>
>
>Now the "subsidies" come in the form of "loans". No, this battle is still
>being waged.

Airbus receives no state subsidies, but Boeing has a hugely profitable lease
deal for tankers with the AF that Sen. McCain calls a rip-off of the
taxpayers.

>
>>
>> >Boeing doesn't get such help. They have to sell their products on
>> >merit.
>> >
>> Yeah, sure. That's funny.
>
>

 

L

Lloyd Parker

Guest

• Dec 5, 2003

• #2,271

In article <[email protected]>,
"David J. Allen" <dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote:
>
>"Lloyd Parker" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> In article <[email protected]>, Steve <[email protected]>
>wrote:
>> >Lloyd Parker wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> >> And the US refusing to buy any military hardware from Airbus isn't a
>form
>> of
>> >> subsidy to Boeing?
>> >>
>> >
>> >Nope. Lockheed, Northrop-Grumman, and even Gulfstream and Cessna are
>> >free to submit bids also. Its restricting military contracting to US
>> >companies, and I have no problem with that.
>> >
>> It's subsidizing US companies by giving only them government contracts.
>
>That's not "subsidizing". Total BS. Boeing competes in the worldwide
>marketplace and gets no help from the feds.

Just guaranteed profits on all the planes it sells to the defense dept.
Listen to what Sen. McCain has been saying about the huge multi-billion dollar
lease of tankers to the Air Force by Boeing. Huge profit deal.


> The defense business is less
>competitive, but for good reason (security).
>
>On the other hand, Airbus has received around $30 billion in member state
>subsidies since it's inception.
>
>
To get started; it receives nothing now and paid back the earlier ones.

 

L

Lloyd Parker

Guest

• Dec 5, 2003

• #2,272

In article <[email protected]>, Steve <[email protected]> wrote:
>Brandon Sommerville wrote:
>> On Thu, 4 Dec 2003 14:25:36 -0500, "The Ancient One"
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Government control of healthcare results in poorer healthcare than private
>>>control, but then you knew that already.
>>
>>
>> Poorer health care for the elite maybe, but as one of the huddled
>> masses, I'm grateful that I don't have to worry about a decision
>> between seeing the doctor and making my mortgage payments.
>
>Typical liberal hyperbole.
>
>The problem is removal of CHOICE from the individual. You don't have to
>be elite to get great healthcare in the US.

Easy to say when you're one of the elite.


>And in a health crisis, you
>have the ability to draw on savings or give up other purchases IF
>getting immediate top-quality care is a priority for you as an
>individual.

If you've managed to save. Lots of low-income workers haven't. Their only
recourse is to lose their house, or go bankrupt perhaps.


>Or you can wait longer or opt for lower levels of treatment
>if its not a priority for you.
>

 

L

Lloyd Parker

Guest

• Dec 5, 2003

• #2,273

In article <[email protected]>,
"David J. Allen" <dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote:
>
>"Lloyd Parker" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>
>> >> None of them has the jurisdiction to interpret the US constitution.
>> >>
>> >
>> >You're hopeless Lloyd. Rights reserved to the states and to the people
>can
>> >be decided upon by the states and the people. No interpretation of the
>US
>> >constitution is required for those to be decided upon.
>>
>> Who decides if a right is reserved to the states or to the people? Since
>it's
>> in the US constitution, the federal courts must.
>>
>
>People and states just do what they do. They don't need a ruling or
>permission from the federal government. If someone disagrees they can sue
>in federal court. That's what I mean.

And that's how, for example, the sodomy laws just recently got overturned.
That's how the MA supreme court overturned their state's marriage law.

>
>
>> >> >The arguments for and against Sodomy laws and Adultery laws each have
>merit.
>> >>
>> >> Sure, so did those against integration. To bigots.
>> >
>> >There you go again. You just can't accept pro/con argument based on
>> >principle.
>> >
>>
>> I didn't realize there were pro arguments for discrimination and bigotry.
>>
>
>For a "scientist", you fail to honor your profession. You *should* know
>better. Generic discrimination only comes labeled as "bad" in your strange
>world. As far as bigotry goes, it's only in that strange world that
>adultery is a civil right.
>
>
>> >>
>> >> >Government intrusion in personal matters is a matter of great concern
>to be
>> >> >sure. Yet, the effect of adultery on families, children, cost to
>society is
>> >> >huge.
>> >>
>> >> Are you saying you cannot commit adultery except by sodomy? And even
>if so,
>> >> why was sodomy between unmarried people illegal? In fact, most of the
>sodomy
>> >> laws were only enforced for gays (thus unmarried people).
>> >>
>> >
>> >No, sodomy was not part of my comment above. It was all about adultery.
>>
>> Why, in a discussion about gays? They can't marry, so they can't commit
>> adultery.
>>
>
>Well, for gays they can have all the sex they want and it won't be adultery.
>Doesn't change the fact that people saw a social benefit to outlawing
>adultery with real pro/con sides to such a debate.
>
>> >
>> >I don't know. I imagine local governments were anxious that their cities
>> >and towns not become a gathering place for gays.
>>
>> And if they decided this about, say, Jews?
>>
>
>If you paid attention you would have noticed that I didn't make a judgment
>on anti-sodomy laws in that statement. Just an observation.
>
>Frankly, I don't understand sodomy law history. So I guessed. I suspect
>they were based on a couple of notions. Communities were more homogenous in
>our history and the application of natural law as opposed to civil law made
>sense in those communities. Before applications of the 14th amendment had a
>chance to take effect, individual states and communites were free to
>discriminate in any number of ways to protect their way of life.
>
>I don't see much of a pro in a pro/con argument on anti-sodomy laws.
>Perhaps a states rights argument.
>
>

 

L

Lloyd Parker

Guest

• Dec 5, 2003

• #2,274

In article <4g5Ab.431038$HS4.3399802@attbi_s01>,
[email protected] (Brent P) wrote:
>In article <[email protected]>,
Daniel J. Stern wrote:
>
>>> You don't have to be elite to get great healthcare in the US.
>
>> You have to be able to afford health insurance. Many Americans can't.
>
>The question should really be not one of wether canada is better or not,
>or who can afford the insurance or not. But what is more affordable, the
>insurance or the taxes that would be applied in a _US government_ run
>system?
>
>Now the person who can afford decent insurance in the USA is woried that
>he won't be able to afford the taxes for the same or lesser coverage from
>the government.

But again, since Canada and western Europe spend less per capita for health
care, why wouldn't that be true here? If everybody's covered, more people get
preventative care, for example, which is less expensive than waiting to treat
a sick person. That would also translate into less lost work days for
businesses. Less turnover of employees too, as benefits wouldn't vary so
much.

>
>If I could trust the US government to make a good health care system I
>wouldn't be worried, because there could be vast improvements over the
>current system in the USA. But these are the same people that can't even
>copy an existing good automotive headlamp regulation. The same people
>who gave us the 55mph speed limit. The same government that puts people
>like joan claybrook in charge of things. Look at the US government's
>track record with the existing medical programs they run. It speaks
>for itself.
>
>It shouldn't be wether a government run system can be as good or better
>than the status quo in the USA, but wether a *US GOVERNMENT* run system
>would be better. My answer is that it very most likely would not be.
>
>So, everyone who thinks the *US GOVERNMENT* would make things better
>for people in the USA raise your hand and I think we will be done
>with this branch.
>
>
>
>

 

D

Dan Gates

Guest

• Dec 5, 2003

• #2,275

Matthew Russotto wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>,
> Brandon Sommerville <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 05 Dec 2003 13:24:57 -0600, [email protected]
>>(Matthew Russotto) wrote:
>>
>>
>>>In article <[email protected]>,
>>>Brandon Sommerville <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>>I know that no matter what happens, if I blow out my knee I'm going to
>>>>get an MRI. It may take 8 weeks, but I'll get it and it won't cost me
>>>>anything extra. Can you say the same thing?
>>>
>>>Not exactly. In my case (hip rather than knee, but same idea), it was
>>>same day (first MRI) and later in the week (second MRI) and it still
>>>didn't cost me anything extra. There was no urgency in the medical
>>>sense. The more complex MRA did take a month, because it had to be
>>>scheduled with both the radiology department and the MRI center. No
>>>rationing involved.
>>
>>And if there was no one who needed an MRI I'd get one right away as
>>well.
>
>
> But in the US, we've got enough MRIs to service both the critical needs and
> the less-critical needs in a timely manner. Or do you want to hobble
> around in pain for 8 weeks longer? (or perhaps MUCH longer in my
> case, as it took three studies to diagnose the problem -- and then there's the
> issue of waiting periods for non-critical surgery in Canada)


Which wasn't really an issue until the last decade when massive cuts to
the system were carried out. If the funding was restored (yes, I know
it will cost me more money), this wouldn't be such a problem. Oh, there
was also the issue of cutting the enrolment at Medical Schools to reduce
the number of doctors out there. Seems they wanted 80% of the
physicians over 60 years old, uh-oh, now they are all retiring! What do
we do now??

Dan

 

D

Daniel J. Stern

Guest

• Dec 5, 2003

• #2,276

On Fri, 5 Dec 2003, David J. Allen wrote:

> > How does a marriage between 2 gays differ in what it "produces" from one
> > between 2 senior citizens, for example?

> Anectodal.

Don't duck the question, answer it.

> The principles behind marriage are what they are and variation *within*
> those principles are insignificant. Changing the principles behind
> marriage are significant and opens a door that will force us to
> re-evaluate the meaning of marriage in ever changing contexts.

That door was opened long ago, when mixed-race couples were allowed to
marry.

> Normalizing our institutions based on sexual preference is much different,
> at least for marriage. It isn't about making it more inclusive, it's about
> redefining it. It changes the nature of marriage.


Exactly the same arguments were made -- unsuccessfully, eventually, for
they were utterly without merit then as now -- against allowing mixed-race
couples to marry.

DS

 

D

Daniel J. Stern

Guest

• Dec 5, 2003

• #2,277

On Fri, 5 Dec 2003, Brent P wrote:

> It shouldn't be wether a government run system can be as good or better
> than the status quo in the USA, but wether a *US GOVERNMENT* run system
> would be better.
> So, everyone who thinks the *US GOVERNMENT* would make things better
> for people in the USA raise your hand and I think we will be done
> with this branch.

Well, OK, fine, then. Let the Canadians administer the program...eh?

DS

 

S

Steve

Guest

• Dec 5, 2003

• #2,278

Daniel J. Stern wrote:

> On Fri, 5 Dec 2003, Steve wrote:
>
>
>>The problem is removal of CHOICE from the individual.
>
>
> Where are you getting this? I've noticed no such absence of individual
> choice here in Canada. I picked my own General Practitioner based on
> recommendations from friends and my own research. Picked my own dentist
> the same way. When I got hit with a kidney stone, I picked the hospital to
> go to (made a bad choice that day, the ER had a heavy load when I happened
> to come in -- but it was MY choice). I picked the doctor to operate and
> remove the kidney stone. Where is this alleged removal of CHOICE from the
> individual in Canada you keep going on about from clear down in Texas?
>
>
>>You don't have to be elite to get great healthcare in the US.
>
>
> You have to be able to afford health insurance. Many Americans can't.

Yeah, they might have to give up their 50-inch plasma TV.

The claim that health insurance is "out of reach" in the US is about as
factual as the idea that in Canada you draw your doctor's name from a hat.

>
>
>>And in a health crisis, you have the ability to draw on savings or give
>>up other purchases IF getting immediate top-quality care is a priority
>>for you as an individual.
>
>
> Same here in Canada.
>
>
>>Or you can wait longer or opt for lower levels of treatment
>
>
> Same here in Canada.
>
Good. I'm referring mainly to proposed changes toward nationalizing US
healthcare that would remove some of those options. If we can change the
US system to provide some coverage where none exists now, good. But
don't take away or reduce what I have (and budget for, and pay for, and
prioritize for) to do it. I'm not "rich" or "elite," but I do take
responsibility for myself and my family.

 

L

Lloyd Parker

Guest

• Dec 5, 2003

• #2,279

In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] (Matthew Russotto) wrote:
>In article <[email protected]>,
>Brandon Sommerville <[email protected]> wrote:
>>On Fri, 05 Dec 2003 13:24:57 -0600, [email protected]
>>(Matthew Russotto) wrote:
>>
>>>In article <[email protected]>,
>>>Brandon Sommerville <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>I know that no matter what happens, if I blow out my knee I'm going to
>>>>get an MRI. It may take 8 weeks, but I'll get it and it won't cost me
>>>>anything extra. Can you say the same thing?
>>>
>>>Not exactly. In my case (hip rather than knee, but same idea), it was
>>>same day (first MRI) and later in the week (second MRI) and it still
>>>didn't cost me anything extra. There was no urgency in the medical
>>>sense. The more complex MRA did take a month, because it had to be
>>>scheduled with both the radiology department and the MRI center. No
>>>rationing involved.
>>
>>And if there was no one who needed an MRI I'd get one right away as
>>well.
>
>But in the US, we've got enough MRIs to service both the critical needs and
>the less-critical needs in a timely manner.

For those with insurance or plenty of money. Of course, that's one reason
health care IS so expensive -- every hospital, every clinic, thinks they have
to have every expensive machine, be capable of performing every expensive
procedure. It's like Chrysler deciding they need to have the parts and
engineers on hand to make every type of vehicle in the world, from sports car
to military tank to NASA space shuttle. What would their overhead costs be?


> Or do you want to hobble
>around in pain for 8 weeks longer? (or perhaps MUCH longer in my
>case, as it took three studies to diagnose the problem -- and then there's
the
>issue of waiting periods for non-critical surgery in Canada)

 

C

C. E. White

Guest

• Dec 5, 2003

• #2,280

Brandon Sommerville wrote:

> What will happen when we give women the right to vote? Or allow them
> to work outside the home? Imagine how negatively that will affect
> society! Oh, wait, I'm getting my decades mixed up.
>
> The way I see it, all we're allowing is two people who love each other
> who happen to be of the same sex to enjoy the same legal status as you
> and your wife. That's it.

No problem, implement the social change in the same manner women were
given the right to vote. Pass a law, don't redine the long understood
legal meaning of marriage by having an agreeable judge declare the
meaning of the word has been changed. I liked Lloyd's suggestion (a
first?) - eliminate the word "marriage" from all statues and replace it
with the term "civil union." Leave the word marriage to the churches and
let them define it the way they want.

Ed