Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers

G

George

Guest

• Dec 7, 2003

• #2,461

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

"Brandon Sommerville" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> 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.

 

G

George

Guest

• Dec 7, 2003

• #2,462

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

"Greg" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
>
>
> 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.
>

 

G

George

Guest

• Dec 7, 2003

• #2,463

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

"Bill Funk" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> 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"

 

G

George

Guest

• Dec 7, 2003

• #2,464

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

"z" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> 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?

 

G

George

Guest

• Dec 7, 2003

• #2,465

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

"z" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> 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?

 

G

George

Guest

• Dec 7, 2003

• #2,466

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

"Bill Funk" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> 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"

 

G

George

Guest

• Dec 7, 2003

• #2,467

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

"Greg" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
>
>
> 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.
>

 

G

George

Guest

• Dec 7, 2003

• #2,468

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

"Brandon Sommerville" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> 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.

 

G

George

Guest

• Dec 7, 2003

• #2,469

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"

 

G

George

Guest

• Dec 7, 2003

• #2,470

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

"Bill Putney" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
>
> Brandon Sommerville wrote:
> >
> > On Sat, 06 Dec 2003 08:50:56 -0500, Bill Putney <[email protected]>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > >"Daniel J. Stern" 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.
> > >
> > >But the idea of a gay "couple" being officially married is almost as
> > >ridiculous according to the established and recognized definition of
> > >marriage. Either the difinition allows gays to be married or it
> > >doesn't. Either it allows a man to marry a dog or it doesn't. We
might
> > >as well get off this one as neither one of us is gonna budge.
> >
> > Are you assigning to a dog or a tree the same capabilities and legal
> > status as a human?
>
> No, but if you can arbitrarily assign marriage rights to gays, then why
> wouldn't someone be able to assign human legal status to a dog (and - no
> - before someone says it, I am not equating gays to dogs). BTW - there
> are people who want to do that (i.e., grant certain human legal and
> consititutional status to animals). There are also people who would
> also want to assign the same legal status to children as adults (i.e.,
> erase the distinction), which of course leaves you open to pedopholia
> becoming a meaningless word, and NAMBLA will have won its fight that the
> UN tried to assist in in the 90's but thank God got publicly exposed by
> the "evil" right wingers and stopped single-handedly by the U.S.
> Congress (with nary a word from the left or European countries).
>
> I can easily visualize, maybe not the evolution of our legal system to
> accepting marriage to dogs (although, frankly nothing would surprise
> me), but certainly, one layer of the onion at a time, to where there
> will legally be no distinction between children and adults, and
> therefore legal pedophilia (the phrase "consenting adults" will become
> meaningless, legally).
>
> I assure you - there are those who have those things on their agenda to
> be done when the time comes (i.e., when the public is sufficiently
> prepared and ready for it - when it's only just one more tiny
> "insignificant" incremental step beyond the last one).
>
> And at each step, the left swears and declares "Oh - this is the last
> step - we won't go beyond this - just grant us this one concession.
> Just allow us to engage in sodomy in our own homes, and we won't ask for
> recognition of gay marriage - it's only those religious people that lie
> and say that that's what we plan to do - we won't go any furhter -
> honest!"
>
> Or now: "Just grant us the right to get married - we promise not to
> erase the distinction between adults and children - it's only those
> religious people that lie and say that that's what we plan to do - we
> won't do that - honest!"
>
> I can hear it now: "There it is - one of them religious right-wingers
> bringing up that bogus 'slippery slope' argument". Don't tell me it's
> not happening.
>
> 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! =-----

 

G

George

Guest

• Dec 7, 2003

• #2,471

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

"Daniel J. Stern" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news[email protected]...
> On Sat, 6 Dec 2003, Greg wrote:
>
> > The defining difference between homosexuals and heterosexuals is the
> > type of activity they each engage in
>
> Repetition does not bolster this statement's validity.
>
> > unless you know of other differences unrelated to sexuality.
>
> The gender of people with whom homosexuals fall in love with...?
>
> DS
>
>

 

G

George

Guest

• Dec 7, 2003

• #2,472

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

"Daniel J. Stern" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news[email protected]...
> 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.
>
> DS
>

 

G

George

Guest

• Dec 7, 2003

• #2,473

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

"Daniel J. Stern" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news[email protected]...
> 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.
>
> DS
>

 

G

George

Guest

• Dec 7, 2003

• #2,474

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

"Daniel J. Stern" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news[email protected]...
> On Sat, 6 Dec 2003, Greg wrote:
>
> > The defining difference between homosexuals and heterosexuals is the
> > type of activity they each engage in
>
> Repetition does not bolster this statement's validity.
>
> > unless you know of other differences unrelated to sexuality.
>
> The gender of people with whom homosexuals fall in love with...?
>
> DS
>
>

 

G

George

Guest

• Dec 7, 2003

• #2,475

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

"Bill Putney" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
>
> Brandon Sommerville wrote:
> >
> > On Sat, 06 Dec 2003 08:50:56 -0500, Bill Putney <[email protected]>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > >"Daniel J. Stern" 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.
> > >
> > >But the idea of a gay "couple" being officially married is almost as
> > >ridiculous according to the established and recognized definition of
> > >marriage. Either the difinition allows gays to be married or it
> > >doesn't. Either it allows a man to marry a dog or it doesn't. We
might
> > >as well get off this one as neither one of us is gonna budge.
> >
> > Are you assigning to a dog or a tree the same capabilities and legal
> > status as a human?
>
> No, but if you can arbitrarily assign marriage rights to gays, then why
> wouldn't someone be able to assign human legal status to a dog (and - no
> - before someone says it, I am not equating gays to dogs). BTW - there
> are people who want to do that (i.e., grant certain human legal and
> consititutional status to animals). There are also people who would
> also want to assign the same legal status to children as adults (i.e.,
> erase the distinction), which of course leaves you open to pedopholia
> becoming a meaningless word, and NAMBLA will have won its fight that the
> UN tried to assist in in the 90's but thank God got publicly exposed by
> the "evil" right wingers and stopped single-handedly by the U.S.
> Congress (with nary a word from the left or European countries).
>
> I can easily visualize, maybe not the evolution of our legal system to
> accepting marriage to dogs (although, frankly nothing would surprise
> me), but certainly, one layer of the onion at a time, to where there
> will legally be no distinction between children and adults, and
> therefore legal pedophilia (the phrase "consenting adults" will become
> meaningless, legally).
>
> I assure you - there are those who have those things on their agenda to
> be done when the time comes (i.e., when the public is sufficiently
> prepared and ready for it - when it's only just one more tiny
> "insignificant" incremental step beyond the last one).
>
> And at each step, the left swears and declares "Oh - this is the last
> step - we won't go beyond this - just grant us this one concession.
> Just allow us to engage in sodomy in our own homes, and we won't ask for
> recognition of gay marriage - it's only those religious people that lie
> and say that that's what we plan to do - we won't go any furhter -
> honest!"
>
> Or now: "Just grant us the right to get married - we promise not to
> erase the distinction between adults and children - it's only those
> religious people that lie and say that that's what we plan to do - we
> won't do that - honest!"
>
> I can hear it now: "There it is - one of them religious right-wingers
> bringing up that bogus 'slippery slope' argument". Don't tell me it's
> not happening.
>
> 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

Brandon Sommerville

Guest

• Dec 7, 2003

• #2,476

On Sat, 06 Dec 2003 18:32:03 -0500, Greg <[email protected]> wrote:

>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?

An interesting question. Now that I think about it, incest was fairly
common amongst royalty in a number of different cultures.

Do I support it? No. Why? Because it's far simpler to ban
incestuous marriages in total than to just ban specific types based on
testing. Suppose the tests were wrong?

Now, back to the real question, what do you specifically have against
gay marriage?
--
Brandon Sommerville
remove ".gov" to e-mail

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

 

B

Brandon Sommerville

Guest

• Dec 7, 2003

• #2,477

On Sat, 06 Dec 2003 16:25:51 -0700, Bill Funk <[email protected]>
wrote:

>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?

There are big discussions going on now about private clinics: should
they be allowed or not?

If so, we essentially have a two tier health system: One for the
wealthy, one for the rest. That sort of defeats the purpose behind
the concept.
--
Brandon Sommerville
remove ".gov" to e-mail

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

 

B

Bobby Koch

Guest

• Dec 7, 2003

• #2,478

To give you an opportunity to respond. Thanks for playing.

George wrote:

> 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"

 

B

Bobby Koch

Guest

• Dec 7, 2003

• #2,479

So you that you can have something to keep you busy.

George wrote:

> Why is this **** in the car groups?
>
> "Daniel J. Stern" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news[email protected]...
> > On Sat, 6 Dec 2003, Greg wrote:
> >
> > > The defining difference between homosexuals and heterosexuals is the
> > > type of activity they each engage in
> >
> > Repetition does not bolster this statement's validity.
> >
> > > unless you know of other differences unrelated to sexuality.
> >
> > The gender of people with whom homosexuals fall in love with...?
> >
> > DS
> >
> >

 

B

Bobby Koch

Guest

• Dec 7, 2003

• #2,480

Nice language from a netcop.

George wrote:

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