Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers

On Sat, 6 Dec 2003, Bill Putney wrote:

> > > Well, yeah! Based on a higher authority that I know you have a problem
> > > with.

> > I have no problem with your higher authority. My problem is with your
> > attempting to force me to accede to your higher authority.
>
> And of course you want me to accede to your higher authority

Nope. Not at all.

DS

"Daniel J. Stern" wrote:

> On Sat, 6 Dec 2003, Greg wrote:
>
> > > > You claim discrimination by excluding gays. I claim that others could
> > > > claim that you would want to discriminate against them because you would
> > > > exlude non-adults, non-humans, or even non-living things for those
> > > > humans that wanted to marry, say, their dog, tree, torque wrench, etc.
>
> > > And this is a slippery-slope argument totally divorced, as it were, from
> > > any reality.
>
> > Why is it a slippery slope argument?
>
> If you don't know the definition of a slippery-slope argument, go look it
> up. I am not your debate coach.

I know the definition of a slippery slope argument, but you didn't explain how
that definition was met.

x-no-archive: yes
"Daniel J. Stern" wrote:

> On Sat, 6 Dec 2003, Greg wrote:


>> "Daniel J. Stern" wrote:
>>
>> > > The difference between a heterosexual or a homosexual individual is
>> > > defined by the activities the individual engages in.
>> >
>> > By you, perhaps. Not by them, nor by most folks with credentials in
>> > psychology, physiology, behavioural science and other related fields.
>>
>> "Most folks." Like Lloyd, perhaps?
>>
Don't suppose you can tell us where we can verify the claim of "most folks
with credentials?"

>> The defining difference between homosexuals and heterosexuals is the
>> type of activity they each engage in
>
>
> Repetition does not bolster this statement's validity.

It's validity doesn't need to be bolstered.

> > unless you know of other differences unrelated to sexuality.
>
> The gender of people with whom homosexuals fall in love with...?

....If love is all that is needed to allow a class to marry. Now THERE is
a slippery slope.

On Sat, 6 Dec 2003, Greg wrote:

> I know the definition of a slippery slope argument

I doubt it. If you did, you'd recognise such arguments on sight.

DS

"Daniel J. Stern" wrote:

> On Sat, 6 Dec 2003, Greg wrote:
>
> > I know the definition of a slippery slope argument
>
> I doubt it. If you did, you'd recognise such arguments on sight.

In order to show that a conclusion is unacceptable, a sequence of
increasingly unacceptable events is shown to follow from the
conclusion. I do note that you couldn't show why you thought it was
a slippery slope, but rather accused me of not knowing what a
slippery slope is instead.

Greg ([email protected]) wrote:
Subject: Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about
safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)

>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.

Americans are now spending over $5,000 per capita on healthcare, more
than double what is spent in Canada, or any other country, and that's
with like 40% of the people not belonging to any health plan. What
makes you think we would 'spend *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?
> >>>Answer a question with a question. How does your state run health care
> >>>system cost less than the current private one?

Because there are no expenses for HMO marketing, competing redundant
HMO bureaucracies (if you think the government bureaucracy is bad
you're not familiar with HMOs), huge executive salaries, dividends and
profits for shareholders, money to cover investment losses (a big
factor in the current sudden rise in insurance costs, or didn't you
know that that's what insurance companies and HMOs do with your
money?); because providers don't have to spend significant chunks of
their highly expensive time filling out various and sundry varieties
of reimbursement forms; because there are no random deliberate or
accidental routine nonpayments of bills that should be paid, requiring
a repeat of the reimbursement process; because a huge health plan has
the market muscle to wrestle low charges from providers, who then
charge correspondingly more for smaller plans and charge the maximum
for individuals paying out of pocket. (Or did you have no idea the
discount your health plan, if you have one, gets from the amount you
see on your hospital bill?)
Of course, that explains why Medicare gets the lowest rates in the US,
and is one of the most successful plans in terms of patient
satisfaction, as well as being the only health plan in the US whose
members get care that's at or near the top rank of the industrialized
nations. Ironic, because of course it is, of course, state-run
healthcare.

> >> Because all the examples we have of state-run health care say it would.
> >> Economy of scale, negotiation for lower prices, preventative care instead of
> >> waiting until the person becomes sick -- all these and other factors.
> >
> >So your answer is we would save money through the reduced quality of care.
> >I suggest you gain some experience with how government price controls
> >have a negative impact on care, at least with regards to how it works
> >in the USA.
> >
> >
> Again, I refer you to all the data which shows people in Canada and western
> Europe are healthier and live longer.

>And naturally this has absolutely nothing to do with lifestyle, food
choices,
>relative scarcity of obesity, and regular excercise as part of the
daily
>routine. Nope, it must only because of state run health care.

Well, yeah, good to see it's dawning on you.
The famous JAMA 7/26/2000 paper points out that the US doesn't have
such bad habits as to put it at the bottom of the barrel for health
care outcomes; we're the 5th best and 3rd best for smoking for females
and males, 5th best for alcohol consumption, fifth best in consumption
of animal fats and third best for cholesterol level, for instance. And
deaths from unnatural causes, like getting shot or car accidents, are
not included. So, if we rank at the bottom of healthcare measures of
quality without ranking at the bottom for lifestyle causes, it's hard
to escape the implication that we are just not getting the best or
most appropriate care, regardless of price.
But enough about me and what I know; what evidence do you have that
you are getting the best care in the industrialized world, or even
average care for the industrialized world, other than your deep-seated
belief that anything else would be just too unthinkable to even
consider?

On Fri, 05 Dec 2003 23:33:26 -0500, Bill Putney <[email protected]>
wrote:

>
>
>"C. E. White" wrote:
>
>> Lesbian couples can even have children.
>
>Technically, no. There has to be a real penis involved somewhere.

If, by "have" you mean "beget", you're right.
However, couples that can't beget children can still have children in
their family.
--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"

On Sat, 06 Dec 2003 15:29:15 GMT, DTJ <[email protected]> wrote:

>On Sat, 6 Dec 2003 01:00:50 -0500, "Daniel J. Stern"
><[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 5 Dec 2003, Bill Putney wrote:
>>
>>> But the same could be said of those who would want the right to marry their
>>> dog or their tree (admitedly ridiculous examples, but they illustrate
>>
>>...your ability to come up with ridiculous examples not at all germane to
>>the topic.
>
>They are no more ridiculous than ass ****ing another man.

Are you posting from the jeep newsgroup?

--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"

Lloyd Parker wrote:

> Didn't "separate but equal" get discredited in the 1950s?

Apparently not, see Harvey Milk Public High School, City of New York. It is a
separate public high school for gay students only. Interesting that the gay
lobby only feels like latching on to the civil rights crusade to receive equal
treatment when it is most convenient.

First we hear that gay people need to be married, because they need to be
treated like anyone else, than we hear that they need separate schools, unlike
anyone else.

And just try not hiring any job applicant with that school on his/her resumé and
try to claim that you aren't discriminating on sexuality.

On Sat, 6 Dec 2003, Greg wrote:

> > > I know the definition of a slippery slope argument
> >
> > I doubt it. If you did, you'd recognise such arguments on sight.
>
> In order to show that a conclusion is unacceptable, a sequence of
> increasingly unacceptable events is shown to follow from the
> conclusion.

Very good.

And that is exactly what is embodied by: "Gay marriage?! Sure, and what's
next? Marriages with three people? Adults marrying kids? People marrying
their dogs? People marrying the tree in their back yard? People marrying
their torque wrench! Layers of the onion, the leftist liberal crowd always
claims they'll stop with this one, but they keep peeling the layers away,
dont' tell me it's not happening".

DS

On Sat, 6 Dec 2003, Greg wrote:

> Don't suppose you can tell us where we can verify the claim of "most folks
> with credentials?"

American Psychological Association, American Psychiatric Association,
American Medical Association, government of Ontario, government of Canada,
government of Germany, government of Holland...and there are many, many
more.

> >> The defining difference between homosexuals and heterosexuals is the
> >> type of activity they each engage in

> > Repetition does not bolster this statement's validity.
>
> It's validity doesn't need to be bolstered.

Well, if you hope to use it to support your argument, you're going to have
to back it up *somehow*, and simply repeating it doesn't get the job done.

DS

z wrote:

> Because there are no expenses for HMO marketing, competing redundant
> HMO bureaucracies (if you think the government bureaucracy is bad
> you're not familiar with HMOs), huge executive salaries, dividends and
> profits for shareholders, money to cover investment losses (a big
> factor in the current sudden rise in insurance costs, or didn't you
> know that that's what insurance companies and HMOs do with your
> money?); because providers don't have to spend significant chunks of
> their highly expensive time filling out various and sundry varieties
> of reimbursement forms; because there are no random deliberate or
> accidental routine nonpayments of bills that should be paid, requiring
> a repeat of the reimbursement process; because a huge health plan has
> the market muscle to wrestle low charges from providers, who then
> charge correspondingly more for smaller plans and charge the maximum
> for individuals paying out of pocket. (Or did you have no idea the
> discount your health plan, if you have one, gets from the amount you
> see on your hospital bill?)
> Of course, that explains why Medicare gets the lowest rates in the US,
> and is one of the most successful plans in terms of patient
> satisfaction, as well as being the only health plan in the US whose
> members get care that's at or near the top rank of the industrialized
> nations. Ironic, because of course it is, of course, state-run
> healthcare.

Don't be so sure.

" Medicare, the nation's largest purchaser of health care, pays hospitals and doctors
a fixed sum to treat a specific diagnosis or perform a given procedure, regardless of
the quality of care they provide. Those who work to improve care are not paid extra,
and poor care is frequently rewarded, because it creates the need for more procedures
and services."
.. . .
" "Right now, Medicare's payment system is at best neutral and, in some cases,
negative, in terms of quality — we think that is an untenable situation," said Glenn
M. Hackbarth, the chairman of the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission, an independent
panel of economists, health care executives and doctors that advises Congress on such
issues as access to care, quality and what to pay health care providers." New York
Times 5 Dec 2003 Friday Section A; Page 1; Column 1

http://tinyurl.com/y1t7 [NY Times, no registration needed]

(According to Lloyd, the NY Times would be a right wing rag, I'm sure, lol).

Despite the problems, some don't want them fixed:
"Keep Your Hands Off Our Medicare!" -Senator Ted Kennedy (D, Mass)

>
> > >> Because all the examples we have of state-run health care say it would.
> > >> Economy of scale, negotiation for lower prices, preventative care instead of
> > >> waiting until the person becomes sick -- all these and other factors.
> > >
> > >So your answer is we would save money through the reduced quality of care.
> > >I suggest you gain some experience with how government price controls
> > >have a negative impact on care, at least with regards to how it works
> > >in the USA.
> > >
> > >
> > Again, I refer you to all the data which shows people in Canada and western
> > Europe are healthier and live longer.
>
> >And naturally this has absolutely nothing to do with lifestyle, food
> choices,
> >relative scarcity of obesity, and regular excercise as part of the
> daily
> >routine. Nope, it must only because of state run health care.
>
> Well, yeah, good to see it's dawning on you.
> The famous JAMA 7/26/2000 paper points out that the US doesn't have
> such bad habits as to put it at the bottom of the barrel for health
> care outcomes; we're the 5th best and 3rd best for smoking for females
> and males, 5th best for alcohol consumption, fifth best in consumption

> of animal fats and third best for cholesterol level, for instance. And
> deaths from unnatural causes, like getting shot or car accidents, are
> not included. So, if we rank at the bottom of healthcare measures of
> quality without ranking at the bottom for lifestyle causes, it's hard
> to escape the implication that we are just not getting the best or
> most appropriate care, regardless of price.

Japan has one of the highest smoking rates in the world (greater than US per capita),
but its smoking related diseases are lower than the US. So there are other factors
involved. The US leads the world in obesity, a country where even poor people have so
much to eat that they are overweight. Lack of exercise is also a major concern.
Fortunately both of these are personal lifestye choices for all of us that are
physically capable to do so.

> But enough about me and what I know; what evidence do you have that
> you are getting the best care in the industrialized world, or even
> average care for the industrialized world, other than your deep-seated
> belief that anything else would be just too unthinkable to even
> consider?

I know that the care I have received has been excellent and have no problems to
report. When my father needed care, his HMO provided him with a superior heart
procedure at a Boston hospital that was invented there.

"Daniel J. Stern" wrote:

> On Sat, 6 Dec 2003, Greg wrote:
>
> > Don't suppose you can tell us where we can verify the claim of "most folks
> > with credentials?"
>
> American Psychological Association, American Psychiatric Association,
> American Medical Association, government of Ontario, government of Canada,
> government of Germany, government of Holland...and there are many, many
> more.

These people say that the definition of homosexuals and heterosexuals differs
from the standard definitions presented below?

>
>
> > >> The defining difference between homosexuals and heterosexuals is the
> > >> type of activity they each engage in
>
> > > Repetition does not bolster this statement's validity.
> >
> > It's validity doesn't need to be bolstered.
>
> Well, if you hope to use it to support your argument, you're going to have
> to back it up *somehow*, and simply repeating it doesn't get the job done.

heterosexual 1 a : of, relating to, or characterized by a tendency to direct
sexual desire toward the opposite sex b : of, relating to, or involving sexual
intercourse between individuals of opposite sex

homosexual 1 : of, relating to, or characterized by a tendency to direct sexual
desire toward another of the same sex
2 : of, relating to, or involving sexual intercourse between persons of the same
sex

Definitions of Merriam-Webster.

On Sat, 06 Dec 2003 19:09:47 GMT, Brandon Sommerville
<[email protected]> wrote:

>On Fri, 05 Dec 2003 17:18:54 -0700, Bill Funk <[email protected]>
>wrote:
>
>>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?
>
>Not that I'm aware of, unless they want to work for free.

it seemed that way, from what was written...
"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."

This seems to be saying that you can't get faster service even if you
pay for it.
But if doctors can work outside the system, why can't you get service
faster by paying more?
--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"

On Sat, 06 Dec 2003 15:18:53 -0500, Bill Putney <[email protected]>
wrote:
>
>Brandon Sommerville wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, 05 Dec 2003 23:33:26 -0500, Bill Putney <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>> >
>> >"C. E. White" wrote:
>> >
>> >> Lesbian couples can even have children.
>> >
>> >Technically, no. There has to be a real penis involved somewhere.
>>
>> Have you never heard of a sperm bank?
>
>Yes, and I was fully aware of that when I posted. If a lezzie has a
>baby, then obviously the other lezzie is not the father (or to
>"de-gendrize" it, one of the biological parents). Even for the sperm
>bank, there was undoubtedly a male involved somewhere in the process,
>hence the reference to the penis (that's where they got *THE SPERM*).
>
>So, no, lesbian couples cannot "have" children biologically. One
>lesbian and one other person "had" the child, biologically speaking.
>The other person could not be another lesbian.

So you're playing a semantics game. It is possible for a lesbian
couple to have a child while married without any adultery involved.
Therefore the couple can have children.
--
Brandon Sommerville
remove ".gov" to e-mail

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

On Sat, 06 Dec 2003 15:05:50 -0500, Greg <[email protected]> wrote:

>
>
>"Larry St. Regis" wrote:
>
>>
>> Out here in Ahnold's Kalifonia, we have a "domestic partners" registry that
>> allows partners OF THE SAME SEX to register their relationship. In most
>> "progressive" companies, mine included, registered domestic partners are
>> eligible for the same benefits that married couples enjoy.
>>
>> The problem I have with the situation is that OPPOSITE sex partners do not
>> get the same consideration! My wife and I lived together for five years
>> before getting married. We were denied the ability to register as domestic
>> partners, with the cited reason being "you are eligible to be legally
>> married". Hmmph.
>
>So much for equal treatment!

So now instead of being "registered partners" they'll get married.
--
Brandon Sommerville
remove ".gov" to e-mail

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

On Sat, 06 Dec 2003 15:08:11 -0500, Greg <[email protected]> wrote:

>Brandon Sommerville wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 06 Dec 2003 00:35:30 -0500, Greg <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> >Siblings cannot either. I don't see you pointing out the 'discrimination' here.
>>
>> There are significant medical reasons for disallowing siblings to
>> marry. Are you suggesting that there are similar reasons preventing
>> gays from marrying?
>
>Only if the siblings are opposite sex & producing children is involved. Clearly
>producing children is not a factor for gay marriage, why should it be for sibling
>marriage? If two (or more) siblings wish to get married to get all those legal
>benefits that people strive for in the form of marriage, why stop them?

Children are impossible in a gay marriage. They are not impossible in
a sibling marriage.
--
Brandon Sommerville
remove ".gov" to e-mail

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

x-no-archive: yes

Brandon Sommerville wrote:

> On Sat, 06 Dec 2003 15:08:11 -0500, Greg <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >Brandon Sommerville wrote:
> >
> >> On Sat, 06 Dec 2003 00:35:30 -0500, Greg <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>
> >> >Siblings cannot either. I don't see you pointing out the 'discrimination' here.
> >>
> >> There are significant medical reasons for disallowing siblings to
> >> marry. Are you suggesting that there are similar reasons preventing
> >> gays from marrying?
> >
> >Only if the siblings are opposite sex & producing children is involved. Clearly
> >producing children is not a factor for gay marriage, why should it be for sibling
> >marriage? If two (or more) siblings wish to get married to get all those legal
> >benefits that people strive for in the form of marriage, why stop them?
>
> Children are impossible in a gay marriage. They are not impossible in
> a sibling marriage.

Then why ban gay, sibling marriages, or marriages between sterilized siblings where
children are impossible?

Brandon Sommerville wrote:
>
> On Sat, 06 Dec 2003 15:18:53 -0500, Bill Putney <[email protected]>
> wrote:
> >
> >Brandon Sommerville wrote:
> >>
> >> On Fri, 05 Dec 2003 23:33:26 -0500, Bill Putney <[email protected]>
> >> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >"C. E. White" wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> Lesbian couples can even have children.
> >> >
> >> >Technically, no. There has to be a real penis involved somewhere.
> >>
> >> Have you never heard of a sperm bank?
> >
> >Yes, and I was fully aware of that when I posted. If a lezzie has a
> >baby, then obviously the other lezzie is not the father (or to
> >"de-gendrize" it, one of the biological parents). Even for the sperm
> >bank, there was undoubtedly a male involved somewhere in the process,
> >hence the reference to the penis (that's where they got *THE SPERM*).
> >
> >So, no, lesbian couples cannot "have" children biologically. One
> >lesbian and one other person "had" the child, biologically speaking.
> >The other person could not be another lesbian.
>
> So you're playing a semantics game. It is possible for a lesbian
> couple to have a child while married without any adultery involved.
> Therefore the couple can have children.

Uh - no. If I were playing a semantics game, I would not have put the
word "have" in quotes nor would I have emphasized *my* meaning when I
used the word with the words "biologically" and "bioliogical" several
times. Had I wanted to use semantics tricks, I would have left it
ambiguous to trick those menatlly asleep at the wheel that my claim
which was false for one meaning and true for the second meaning was true
for both - that's a typical Lloyd trick, and I don't play those
intellectually dishonest games.

However, I will say that if someone said "Did you know that Anne and Jim
had a baby last week", any normal person would know (assume is too weak
a word in this case) that what was meant was that there was a baby born
and that Anne and Jim were the (biological) parents. Only an idiot
would assume that Anne had had an affair, and that someone besides Jim
was the father (even if that were indeed the case, clearly the meaning
by the statement was not that).

So for the 3rd or 4th time, no - a lesbian couple cannot have a baby in
the sense that normal, reasonable, intelligent people use the word
"have" in the context of babies.

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! =-----

Why is this **** in the car groups?

"Bill Funk" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Sat, 06 Dec 2003 19:09:47 GMT, Brandon Sommerville
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >On Fri, 05 Dec 2003 17:18:54 -0700, Bill Funk <[email protected]>
> >wrote:
> >
> >>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?
> >
> >Not that I'm aware of, unless they want to work for free.
>
> it seemed that way, from what was written...
> "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."
>
> This seems to be saying that you can't get faster service even if you
> pay for it.
> But if doctors can work outside the system, why can't you get service
> faster by paying more?
> --
> Bill Funk
> replace "g" with "a"