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.
On Fri, 05 Dec 03 10:49:52 GMT, [email protected] (Lloyd Parker)
wrote:

>In article <[email protected]>,
> Bill Funk <[email protected]> wrote:
>>On Thu, 04 Dec 03 10:19:48 GMT, [email protected] (Lloyd Parker)
>>wrote:
>>
>>>In article <[email protected]>,
>>> Bill Funk <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>On Wed, 03 Dec 03 10:56:52 GMT, [email protected] (Lloyd Parker)
>>>>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>You're free to pay for their healthcare any time you want. But what
>>>>>>idiot believes that they have the right to reach into my pocket and take
>>>>>>what is mine (it's called stealing). So - really - who is preventing
>>>>>>you and anyone who feels that way from paying for the treatment of these
>>>>>>people? You have that right, as do I - but by freedom of will - not by
>>>>>>confiscation.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>It's called living in a society. Society has the right to compel you to
>pay
>>>>>taxes, and it's the height of idiocy to call it stealing or theft. If you
>>>>>don't want to live in a society, you can leave. Nobody's keeping you
>here.
>>>>
>>>>That assumes that all taxes are for legimitate purposes.
>>>>And that's hardly the case.
>>>>
>>>And you get to decide that? Sorry, that would be anarchy. In our society,
>>>our elected government decides that.
>>
>>And you obviously think that makes them OK.
>> You might not agree (that's your right), but I do in fact get to
>>decide if taxes are all used for legimitate purposes. It's part living
>>in a democratic republic.
>>Do *YOU* think all taxes go for legimate purposes?
>>
>
>Hell no. Missile defense in space, for example. Haliburton contracts in
>Iraq, for another. Do I get to decide which ones I don't pay taxes to
>support?

Ah! Another subject change, from deciding which ones are right, to not
paying them.
You do that a lot.
It's because you can't respond to the subject at hand, so you change
it.

--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"
 
On Fri, 05 Dec 03 10:41:32 GMT, [email protected] (Lloyd Parker)
wrote:

>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.

You obviously don't understand the definition of "subsidy".
You seem to think it means paying for services or products.

--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"
 
On Fri, 05 Dec 03 15:02:37 GMT, [email protected] (Lloyd Parker)
wrote:

>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.

And look who it was who proposed the leasing: it wasn't Boeing.
And, as with most for-profit companies, Boeing expects profits on ALL
the planes it sells.
What is it about profit that you find so abhorrent?
>
>
>> 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.

Not true at all.
Many countries in Europe are all but forcing their airlines to
purchase Airbus planes rather than Boeings.
--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"
 
On Fri, 05 Dec 03 10:50:44 GMT, [email protected] (Lloyd Parker)
wrote:

>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.

Without them, Airbus would be but a memory.
>
>>Boeing doesn't get such help. They have to sell their products on
>>merit.
>>
>Yeah, sure. That's funny.

Explain that.
How does Boeing get to sell their planes without the purchasers
expecting a product that works?

--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"
 
On Fri, 05 Dec 03 15:03:19 GMT, [email protected] (Lloyd Parker)
wrote:

>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.

Read the news more frequently: that deal has been changed, and the
original lease deal was offered by the Government, not Boeing.
And of course it's profitable. It's supposed to be.
Why is buying less costly than leasing? Becauase the Air Force will be
responsible for repairs/maintenance. The actual costs of the planes
remains the same.
>
>>
>>>
>>> >Boeing doesn't get such help. They have to sell their products on
>>> >merit.
>>> >
>>> Yeah, sure. That's funny.
>>
>>

--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"
 
On Fri, 05 Dec 2003 11:07:05 -0500, Dan Gates
<[email protected]> wrote:

>Bill Funk 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.
>> That's on top of the economic incentives those governments gave to
>> Airbus (subsidies) to help Airbus products.
>> Boeing doesn't get such help. They have to sell their products on
>> merit.
>>
>
>Bwahahahahahahahaha
>
>Only an American would believe that the US is subsidy free. Take a look
>from outside the fishbowl for a change.
>
>Dan

No one said otherwise.
--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"
 
On Fri, 05 Dec 03 10:51:18 GMT, [email protected] (Lloyd Parker)
wrote:

>In article <[email protected]>,
> Bill Funk <[email protected]> wrote:
>>On Thu, 04 Dec 03 10:09:39 GMT, [email protected] (Lloyd Parker)
>>wrote:
>>
>>>Besides, if the gov't pays for health care instead of the employer, that's
>>>reducing the costs to the employer.
>>
>>I guess taxes don't count as a cost.
>>
>When Europe pays less for health care per capita, that would reduce employer
>expenses.

It also reduces health care to a lower common denominator.
--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"
 
On Fri, 05 Dec 03 10:52:15 GMT, [email protected] (Lloyd Parker)
wrote:

>In article <[email protected]>,
> Bill Funk <[email protected]> wrote:
>>On Thu, 04 Dec 03 10:20:24 GMT, [email protected] (Lloyd Parker)
>>wrote:
>>
>>>In article <[email protected]>,
>>> Bill Funk <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>On Wed, 03 Dec 03 10:54:53 GMT, [email protected] (Lloyd Parker)
>>>>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>In article <[email protected]>,
>>>>> Bill Funk <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>On Tue, 02 Dec 03 15:37:02 GMT, [email protected] (Lloyd Parker)
>>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>In article <Us5zb.282500$275.1000782@attbi_s53>,
>>>>>>> [email protected] (Brent P) wrote:
>>>>>>>>In article <[email protected]>, Lloyd Parker wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Yeah, it'd be terrible if everybody were covered and we spent less on
>>>>>>>health
>>>>>>>>> care, as Europe, Canada, and Japan do, wouldn't it? Terrible for
>>>>>insurance
>>>>>>>>> companies, drug companies, HMOs, etc, that is.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>How would we spend "less on health care" ? Instead of paying for health
>>>>>>>>insurance we would pay *AT LEAST* that much in additional taxes.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Why is it, then, that every western European nation, plus Canada and
>>>Japan,
>>>>>>>spend less per capita on health care than the US yet still cover
>>>everybody?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Lloyd, you might want to do a Google search on the keywords:
>>>>>>canadian health care problems
>>>>>>This would let you see reality instead of the utopia your liberal
>>>>>>friends promise.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Oh great, he wants me to absorb his right-wing propaganda.
>>>>>
>>>>>Try this:
>>>>>
>>>>>http://www-2.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs.cmu.edu/user/clamen/misc/politics/HealthCar
>e/
>>>Co
>>>>>nsumerReports-Sep92.html.gz#Does%20Canada%20Have%20The%20Answer?
>>>>
>>>>Consumer Reports???
>>>>You've GOT to be kidding.
>>>>
>>>Why is it all the right-wing Taliban here would believe anything an HMO or
>>>drug company tells them but reject the main voice for the consumer?
>>
>>Lloyd, you must be on drugs. The illegal kind.
>>CR is "the main voice for the consumer"??
>
>Yes.
>
>>Where did you get that from??
>
>Common sense, the fact that consumer columns and consumer shows always cite
>them...

Always?
Try again, and this time look outside your liberal handbook.
>
>I guess you buy into "whatever a business says, shut up and take it"?

Where do you get this stuff?
You sure have a healthy imagination.
Oh, sorry, I'm wrong there. You just read this straight from your
handbook, and can't actually back it up.
When the handbook fails, you use namecalling to tryt o make a point.
Taliban? Do you even know what the Taliban was? Can you actually make
a valid comparison between the Taliban and consertavism?
Let's see, what page would that be on... ?
>
>>No wonder you're the laughing stock you are.
>
>
>
>>Anytime you want to step out of that ivory tower you live in and join
>>the real world, you're welcome. Be prepared for a shock, though.
>>

--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"
 
On Fri, 05 Dec 2003 11:12:42 -0500, Dan Gates
<[email protected]> wrote:

>Bill Funk wrote:
>> On Thu, 04 Dec 2003 12:55:00 -0500, Dan Gates
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Let me just add:
>>> Can US
>>>
>>>
>>>Infant mortality/ 1,000
>>>live births 5 7
>>>
>>>Prob. of dying/1,000
>>>Age 5, Males 6 8
>>>Age 5, Females 5 8
>>>
>>>Age 15-59, Males 104 148
>>>Age 15-59, Females 59 85
>>
>>
>> Point out, while you're at it, that these figures say absolutely
>> nothing about health care, one way or another.
>>
>
>
>They certainly must, because to listen to any number of Americans, life
>is so tough up here what with the cold and snow and the high taxes and
>the low dollar and the poor productivity and the poor democracy, our
>lives are much harder to live, we should have much poorer life expectancies.

That's hogwash, and you know it.
Hyperbole isn't to be taken seriously.
>
>The figures cited are pretty standard measures of health care efficacy.
> Since the US and Canada are so similar, demographically, health care
>must be the difference.

As has been pointed out far too many times for you to NOT have seen it
by now, correlation does not equal causation.
>
>Dan

--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"
 
On Fri, 05 Dec 03 10:41:02 GMT, [email protected] (Lloyd Parker)
wrote:

>In article <[email protected]>, Steve <[email protected]> wrote:
>>Daniel J. Stern wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, 4 Dec 2003, Jenn Wasdyke wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>>So your perception of Canadian healthcare is based on the experience of a
>>>>>friend of yours who was warned off the system by some unknown other
>>>>>individuals.
>>>>>Mine is based on getting very suddenly struck down with a large and lodged
>>>>>kidney stone at 4 in the morning while in Toronto. Extremely painful, but
>>>>>not life threatening. I was diagnosed, treated, operated upon and
>>>>>prescribed suitable meds in a fast, efficient, capable, thorough manner.
>>>
>>>
>>>>As opposed to the American health care system where kidney stone
>>>>patients are tossed out on the street and beaten before being put out of
>>>>their misery...
>>>
>>>
>>> Try getting a lodged kidney stone in America without medical coverage or
>>> lots of money, then get back to us.
>>>
>>> DS
>>>
>>
>>Dan, living in America without medical coverage is stupid. I don't have
>>any patience for people who are deliberately stupid, nor do I want to
>>subsidize them. Decent health care is affordable here, so let's stick to
>>comparing someone in the US who HAS coverage (not lots of money) to
>>someone in Canada. At least you get to PICK your coverage and your
>>doctor here.
>>
>>
>>
>
>And the poor can crawl off and die, is that it?

Gee, Lloyd, not even your liberal friends can come up with such a
scenario actually happening.
Doesn't it feel lonely out there all alone?
--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"
 
On Fri, 05 Dec 2003 19:46:08 GMT, [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.
>
>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.

All you need to do is look at the VA health system to see how the US
government would run a nationwide health system.
And the VA system is one in which the Government entered into a
contract with the individuals involved; and the gov't simply doesn't
live up to its end.
A nationwide health system by the same people? How could it possibly
be better than the VA system?
>
>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.
>
>
>

--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"
 
On Fri, 5 Dec 2003 15:58:33 -0500, Daniel J Stern <[email protected]>
wrote:

>HillaryCare did a terrific job of scaring Americans off any changes
>whatsoever to the current system. I have little doubt that was, in fact,
>one of the primary main goals behind it.

The people of New York certainly wish that were so.
Hillary's doing her best to institute a state-run health care system,
and it's a pip.
Google away on that one.
Oops, shouldn't Google it, according to Lloyd, as Google will only
serve up conservative opinions!
Better read Consumer Reports, instead.

--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"
 
On Fri, 05 Dec 2003 19:22:36 GMT, Brandon Sommerville
<[email protected]> wrote:

>You can always pay for more care here, if you want a chiropractor or
>you want to go to some sort of therapist or something along those
>lines. What you *don't* get is the right to skip to the head of the
>line because you've got more disposable income if you need or want a
>non-critical procedure.

Really?
So your health system is non-competitive, in the sense that doctors
can't work outside the system?

--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"
 
On Fri, 05 Dec 03 10:38:59 GMT, [email protected] (Lloyd Parker)
wrote:

>>Government control of healthcare results in poorer healthcare than private
>>control, but then you knew that already.
>>
>
>Are you claiming veterans get poorer healthcare? LOL!

Oh, Lloyd, where are you?
Do you read anything other than what the DNC proofreads for you?
Try something that others call research: actually visit a VA hospital,
or even better, volunteer some time there.
You will get to see gov't healthcare for what it actually is.

--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"
 
On Fri, 05 Dec 03 10:36:33 GMT, [email protected] (Lloyd Parker)
wrote:

>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: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.
>>
>>
>Ask any veteran if he or she would give that up. Please. Then duck.

Have you ever actually done that yourself?
Try it, you will be very surprised.

You continually demonstrate that you really don't get out much. Your
view of the world seems to be extremely limited by that ivory tower
you live in.
The fact that you are a teacher doesn't mean you actually know more
than others, you know. A little life experience would do wonders for
you.

You can even visit a VA hospital. Talk to the people there waiting for
services. They won't hurt you at all.
But I can guarantee that they will give you answers that contradict
what you're saying here.

--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"
 
On Fri, 05 Dec 2003 17:56:40 GMT, Brandon Sommerville
<[email protected]> wrote:

>On Fri, 5 Dec 2003 11:22:53 -0500, "Douglas A. Shrader"
><[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>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.
>
>Sounds like the result of a health care system run on a for profit
>basis.

No, the VA is not a for profit system.
This is actually a result of the gov't failing to follow through on
the contract it made with servicemen.
Why people think the same gov't will follow through on a similar
contract with all citizens is beyond me.

--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"
 
On Fri, 05 Dec 03 10:54:41 GMT, [email protected] (Lloyd Parker)
wrote:

>In article <[email protected]>,
> Bill Funk <[email protected]> wrote:
>>On Thu, 04 Dec 03 10:25:54 GMT, [email protected] (Lloyd Parker)
>>wrote:
>>
>>>Canada's a democracy; if their health care system is so bad, why haven't the
>>>people gotten rid of it? England's is even more socialized, but even the
>>>conservative Thatcher realized it was so popular she didn't dare touch it.
>>
>>It's a truth that one of democracy's worse points is that people, when
>>they discover that they can vote themselves something for 'free', will
>>do so.
>>It's human nature.
>>
>So you'd prefer, what, a monarchy? A theocracy to impose your religious
>beliefs on others?

I never said I'd prefer anything else.
And I never even hinted that I wanted to impose my religious beliefs
on others.
I point out a fact, and you immediately try to make me say something
else. Typical of you when something you don't like is said.
Why not just admit that you're wrong instead of putting yourself in
the position of looking so dumb?

--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"
 
On Fri, 5 Dec 2003 16:41:54 -0500, "The Ancient One"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>> >They don't speak for any consumers I know. Consumer Reports is a joke,
>used
>> >by those people who lack the intelligence to invistigate an issue and
>learn
>> >the truth.
>> >
>> >
>> Yeah, what else to expect of the mind-set that thinks Fox News is "fair
>and
>> balanced"?
>
>I don't watch Fox news Loyd, why do you make up "facts" to support your
>lies?
>
Lloyd lives in a fantasy world where everyone adheres to his set of
preconceived notions.
It's obvious that he has very little experience of life outside the
hallowed halls of Emory.

--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"
 
On 5 Dec 2003 09:59:45 -0800, [email protected] (z) wrote:

>Bill Funk <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
>> On Tue, 02 Dec 2003 05:17:32 GMT, "David J. Allen"
>> <dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote:
>>
>> >Reminds me of my experience in a country a few years ago that had "free"
>> >(i.e., rationed) medical care for all. The demand for care outstripped the
>> >supply and the only people who got decent medical care were the people with
>> >money, who could pay for a private doctor. Everyone else had to go wait in
>> >line at the clinic and hope for decent care.
>>
>> Well, Hillary's solution would have fixed that; any doctor caught
>> giving care outside the approved system would be liable to legal
>> prosecution, with penalties including fines, jail time & loss of
>> license.
>> A true utopia.
>
>Better now. Only doctors doing 'Partial Birth Abortions', whatever
>those may be, get fines, jail time & loss of license. Much better.

"whatever those may be..."?
You use it as an example, but don't know what it is?

--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"
 
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