Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers

On Sun, 07 Dec 2003 17:10:09 GMT, "David J. Allen"
<dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote:

>
>"Brandon Sommerville" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> On Sun, 07 Dec 2003 07:17:12 GMT, "David J. Allen"
>> <dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote:
>
>> >Divorce, by itself, isn't proof our insitution of marriage doesn't work.
>>
>> You're right. And were the rate 10 or even 20% you'd have a point.
>> But 50%?
>>
>
>Well... yeah! 50% is a lot, but not all of that 50% is a failure of the
>institution. People do try again and end up in marriage that work. I think
>if the number of people who just decided not to marry (because they didn't
>believe in or trust the insitution) was large enough, then the institution
>would begin to teeter and lose it's value in society.

Sometimes they try three or four times! If something fails on a
regular basis, then there's a significant problem with the seriousness
with which society takes it. My feeling on it is that it's the
instant gratification concept that most people live with these days.
Everyone wants to be happy right now, all the time. Marriage requires
constant effort and is never emotional bliss all the time. Society as
a whole doesn't value it enough to work at it. Not everyone, and I
count myself as someone who believes in working at it, but a very
significant number.

>> >Early on Lenin and the Soviets attempted to eradicate the family so the
>> >state could raise children ideologically pure. Now there's a model that
>> >failed badly.
>>
>> I'm not arguing with that.
>
>Well, it is an example of a failed insitution. It doesn't exist anymore.
>Marriage does mostly in it's traditional form.

That was an extreme implementation of some crazy ideology not
represented anywhere in any kind of nature.

>> My experience has been that those who are racist themselves are the
>> most likely to have racist experiences and scream the loudest about
>> them. Political entities exist originally for a purpose, then that
>> purpose inevitably evolves into the existence of the political entity
>> itself. They rely on what racism exists (a lot less blatant now, but
>> far from non-existant) to make it appear that there is a lot more. If
>> there were truly none, then no one would react or believe in their
>> message.
>
>I think they're nearing that state, but there's a big stake in allowing this
>racial circus to continue by Democrats. They need the black vote to win.
>They benefit when the black community is stirred up in anger against "racial
>injustice" (Republican policies). They can't afford to ignore or sweep
>aside the black community. So they cultivate this stuff.

Politicians will use any means necessary to get a vote.
>>
>> Marriage *is* a contract. I remember signing the papers!
>
>Sure, but it's way more than that. The reason it's treated as it is legally
>is because of the way we view it's importance. It's not "merely" a
>contract.

You're right. There's supposed to be caring and concern behind it,
ideally love. None of which precludes gays.
--
Brandon Sommerville
remove ".gov" to e-mail

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

On Sun, 07 Dec 2003 12:47:58 -0500, Bill Putney <[email protected]>
wrote:

>
>
>Brandon Sommerville wrote:
>>
>> If someone presented you with a business model that had a 50% failure
>> rate with a few great successes, would you consider it overall to be a
>> success or would you recommend changing it?
>
>When a problem is attempted to be fixed in the business world, yeah -
>you probably should change something. But change for the sake of change
>is not necessarily going to fix the problem. IOW - a business is having
>problems. Let's burn the buildings down and start making its
>products(say pistons and crankshafts) out of plastic instead of metal.
>We changed some things - so the problems are now fixed and we have a
>successful business, right?
>
>Yeah - lets see - my left leg is broken, so I'll put a tourniquet on my
>right arm - yeah - I had a problem - I made a change - problem solved.
>
>I don't think homosexual "marriages" are a fix for whatever problems,
>real or perceived, there are with the institution of marriage.
>
>Just my opinion...

I never suggested anything like that. All I am disputing is the value
that society apparently puts on marriage.
--
Brandon Sommerville
remove ".gov" to e-mail

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

On Sun, 07 Dec 2003 23:05:07 GMT, DTJ <[email protected]> wrote:

>On Sun, 07 Dec 2003 16:07:46 GMT, Brandon Sommerville
><[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>If someone presented you with a business model that had a 50% failure
>
>Ah the typical liberal idiot method of making up facts to prove
>something we all know is false.

Hey, your village called, they want their idiot back...
--
Brandon Sommerville
remove ".gov" to e-mail

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

On Sun, 07 Dec 2003 12:23:43 -0500, Greg <[email protected]> wrote:

>x-no-archive: yes
>
>Brandon Sommerville wrote:

>> 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?
>
>It's far simpler to discriminate, in other words. Why can't Jeff marry his brother Jerry?
>Besides who says that the siblings would need be incestous?

That's kind of the point of marriage, isn't it?

>What if they just want those
>rights that the gay lobby claims are available only by marriage?

Then let them lobby for it.

>> Now, back to the real question, what do you specifically have against
>> gay marriage?
>
>The inconsistencies of the arguments being used to promote it (gays need to get "married"
>to get the legal benefits, but providing the legal benefits doesn't seem to be good
>enough), claiming the need to redefine words but only narrowly when convenient, among other
>reasons already mentioned here.

None of this explains why it is so repugnant to so many that gays be
allowed to be legally married. Is your concept of marriage (a
relationship between two people who love each other) so weak that it
is threatened by gays expressing those same feelings and wanting to be
recognized in the same fashion?
--
Brandon Sommerville
remove ".gov" to e-mail

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

"Brandon Sommerville" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Sun, 07 Dec 2003 07:03:23 GMT, "David J. Allen"
> <dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Brandon Sommerville" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >news:[email protected]...
> >> On Fri, 05 Dec 2003 21:29:11 GMT, "David J. Allen"
> >> <dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >Marriage is what it is for the benefit is provides to society not for
any
> >> >civil right it satisfies.
> >>
> >> And that benefit is children, right? Which brings us back to couples
> >> who can't or don't want to have children. It also leads us to the
> >> question of what is better for kids? An unhappy marriage between a
> >> man and a woman or a happy relationship between two men or two women?
> >> As long as they learn how to love someone else, it doesn't matter the
> >> sex of that person.
> >
> >No, the benefit is carrying forward values and blessings from generation
to
> >generation. You can try to stir up the stew by throwing in a bunch of
"what
> >if"'s about happy, well adjusted, smart, intelligent gay couples and
stupid,
> >idiodic, lying, cheating, bank-robbing straight couples. It doesn't
change
> >the principles of the argument though.
> >
> >Changing marriage into a civil right for <fill in the blank> rather than
an
> >institution to bless our continued existence over the generations.
>
> And "our continued existence over the generations" means children,
> doesn't it?
>

Not just physical existence, but spiritual, social, cultural, etc.,
etc....all that stuff. Our values.


> >> >No. The right believes in natural rights that are God given.
> >>
> >> Tough on atheists, isn't it? Every right is granted by the community,
> >> not god (which god anyways?).
> >>
> >That isn't the point, and no it isn't tough on Athiests (they should
> >thank.... oh never mind). The basis for our entire political system, and
> >what made it unique at the time, is the concept that there are certain
> >rights that can't be granted by *any* institution or government (or
> >community) because they are inalienable. So they were described as
granted
> >"by God".
> >
> >The notion that our rights are granted by the community is un-American.
> >Literally. In the monarchies of the past, rights were derived from the
> >monarch. They were the gods of their subjects. Communism claims all
rights
> >eminate from the government or 'proletariet'.
>
> It's ironic that it's considered un-American, due to the fact that
> it's the American community that grants these rights. The state is
> limited by agreement in what it can or cannot take away from the
> people.
>

That's not true. The premise of our constitution is that there are certain
rights that are inalienable. They don't come from any community. They just
are and can never be taken away. There are other's that do derive from the
will of the people, but the "inalienable" ones the state can never take away
regardless of any agreement.

> >We all know that he who has the power to grant, also has the power to
take
> >away.
>
> Patriot Act, anyone?
>

Leftist fantasy. All of their predictions of lost rights have been shown to
be wrong.

> >By the way... are you from Canada? It didn't occur to me that you might
be
> >and that maybe Canadians rights aren't recognized as "God given".
>
> Yep, I'm from the Great White North.
>
> >> >The left
> >> >loves to pile on with new rights all the time. We start out with
rights of
> >> >life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness and the bill of rights and
the
> >> >libs want to drive it as far as they can with rights to benefits,
jobs,
> >> >shelter, health care, etc.. All of which would obligate the
government to
> >> >provide them. The right believes that, generally, individuals should
be
> >> >responsible for their own welfare and do a better job of it that the
> >> >government.
> >>
> >> If only we could come to a fair balance. The problem now is that as
> >> soon as something is suggested by the left the right reflexively
> >> dismisses it and the same thing happens to that suggested by the
> >> right. *Who* puts forward the idea has become more important than the
> >> idea itself.
> >
> >Well that works both ways (left and right). And it's true for the
politcal
> >faces of Democrats and Republicans.
>
> Isn't that what I just said?
>

I think we agree. It's the unfortunate nature of politics.

> >But actually, it isn't true. Both left
> >and right have won ideological vitories in the US. There is a huge
> >entitlement class in the US thanks to the left. The right is not going
to
> >change it. The right has built a powerful military that has protected
> >freedom and liberty wordwide and has the courage to use it.
>
> Both of those were started before things got so badly entrenched.
>

??? badly entrenched? If you mean politically polarized, then I think that
has to do with the Democrats hold on power having slipped in recent years.
They're going to the trenches to get it back.

> >> >> Why is this not good? Hell, 50 yrs ago the idea of a woman working
> >> >> outside the home was a bad thing. The idea of a woman executive was
> >> >> unthinkable, yet here we are today.
> >> >>
> >> >Because it changes the nature of marriage. It changes it into a union
whose
> >> >purpose is to acquire benefits, most of which are available outside
> >> >marriage, and are specific to protecting the dependents of a provider.
> >>
> >> Women working changed the nature of marriage too. We survived.
> >
> >We have, but it's caused family problems for double income families with
> >children. It hasn't been a good thing. It's tended towards a negative
> >effect on families. The idea of women in the work force as a concept
> >isolated to itself is not an issue. Just it's effect on the family.
>
> And somehow gays getting married will make this worse?
>

I don't believe the existence of a married gay couple "does" anything to
society. It works the other way around. Our values reflect in our laws.
The way we regard marriage as a whole has a very significant effect on
society and the social order we place on society via the law. If we were to
regard marriage independent of the traditional view (man, woman, children)
then that is an indication of our values and would likewise be manifested in
all our laws. It would be a quantum shift in the traditions of what people
have believed makes society good.


> >> >BTW, we don't have a completely gender normalized society and it's
debatable
> >> >that it would be beneficial. One could *never* differentiate based on
> >> >gender. Is that necessarily good?
> >>
> >> Why should you differentiate on gender for anything except who your
> >> life partner is?
> >>
> >Oh heavens. Anything we do by gender. Public bathrooms and locker
rooms,
> >public nudity,
>
> If it wasn't forbidden none of this would matter!
>

People generally value modesty. The younger generations and dirty old men
have some difficulty understanding it (nothing new), but it is nonetheless
an important social value. It's reflected in public nudity laws and apply
to both genders... but not the same way. If we had a gender normal society,
the law couldn't discriminate between men and women wrt nudity. That
matters to most people. If that changes, we'll have topless women at the
park and beaches and maybe even public sex. How about that guys!


> >public discrimination of private organizations that gender
> >discriminate (the priesthood, private universities, etc.).
>
> Do only men have the ability to commune with your god? Separate
> universities are already under attack, aren't they?
>
> >There are
> >probably better examples, but we wouldn't benefit from a gender
normalized
> >society. That's not to say that there are some things that should be
gender
> >normalized that maybe aren't, just that it's unrealistic and undesirable
to
> >normalize *everything* we do and *every* institution by gender. That's
why
> >the Equal Rights Amendment lost 30 years ago. Men and women are
different
> >to a degree that warrants proper discrimination.
>
> The problem with the Equal Rights Amendment was that it was simply the
> pendulum swinging the other way instead of rational thought. If it
> came down to a choice between a more qualified man and a less
> qualified woman, the woman was to be chosen because she was a woman.
> Before that it was the other way around. The *right* way to do it is
> closer to being in place now, where the gender of the person is
> irrelevant. There needs to be a single standard and if someone can
> meet it or exceed it, the job is theirs.
>

That's not what the equal rights amendment was. What you descibe sounds
like Affirmative Action.

> >> The courts *should* protect what individuals choose. It would seem
> >> that you're all about freedom until it compromises your ideas about
> >> what people should be doing.
> >
> >Not at all! The courts have no such jurisdiction! They only have power
to
> >rule on the law.
>
> And to determine when a law is wrong.
>
> >You seem to have missed the point. If marriage were a
> >civil right, then congress could not pass laws regulating it and the
courts
> >would enforce it. As long as it isn't a civil right, congress, or
> >legislatures, can regulate it in the interest of the public welfare
(that's
> >for you Lloyd) as they see fit. Since they are our representatives, they
> >represent the public view by how they vote to regulate things. If they
vote
> >to allow gay marriage. That's what we'll do. If the court "finds" a
right
> >to marriage in the constitution (and only a leftest court would), then
> >congress is removed from the picture and thus the desires and opinions of
> >the people on the matter are rendered irrelevent (unless we pass a
> >constitutional amendment).
>
> Maybe Canada has a leftist Supreme Court then, because IIRC it was
> found to be discrimination to prevent same sex couples from getting
> married.
> --
> Brandon Sommerville
> remove ".gov" to e-mail
>
> Definition of "Lottery":
> Millions of stupid people contributing
> to make one stupid person look smart.

Brandon Sommerville wrote:

>
> >Gay marriages wouldn't have gay divorces too?
>
> Irrelevant. The point was that marriage is apparently something too
> valuable to risk tampering with. At a 50% failure rate, society
> apparently doesn't consider it to be that valuable anymore.

How would introducing gay marriage improve said "failure" rate? What is the
magic percentage needed to necessitate gay marriage?

Brandon Sommerville wrote:

> On Sun, 07 Dec 2003 12:23:43 -0500, Greg <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >x-no-archive: yes
> >
> >Brandon Sommerville wrote:
>
> >> 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?
> >
> >It's far simpler to discriminate, in other words. Why can't Jeff marry his brother Jerry?
> >Besides who says that the siblings would need be incestous?
>
> That's kind of the point of marriage, isn't it?
>
> >What if they just want those
> >rights that the gay lobby claims are available only by marriage?
>
> Then let them lobby for it.
>
> >> Now, back to the real question, what do you specifically have against
> >> gay marriage?
> >
> >The inconsistencies of the arguments being used to promote it (gays need to get "married"
> >to get the legal benefits, but providing the legal benefits doesn't seem to be good
> >enough), claiming the need to redefine words but only narrowly when convenient, among other
> >reasons already mentioned here.
>
> None of this explains why it is so repugnant to so many that gays be
> allowed to be legally married. Is your concept of marriage (a
> relationship between two people who love each other) so weak that it
> is threatened by gays expressing those same feelings and wanting to be
> recognized in the same fashion?

Negative, nor is that what I said.

"Brandon Sommerville" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Sun, 07 Dec 2003 05:02:39 GMT, "David J. Allen"
> <dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote:
> >
> >"Daniel J. Stern" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >news[email protected]...
> >> On Sat, 6 Dec 2003, Greg wrote:
>
> >> > Because if banning marriage of gays is discriminatory, than banning
> >> > marriage of consenting adults in parties greater than two etc.
certainly
> >> > is too.
> >>
> >> Is this supposed to be scary and/or threatening? If so, why? Or is it
just
> >> another one of those things that you think should be illegal because
you
> >> think it's icky or whatever and it's been that way for as long as you
can
> >> remember?
> >>
> >Perhaps you presume that those who believe in the value of marriage and
> >familty to society, to the exclusion of moral anarchy, is due to weak
> >mindedness. Peasants nodding agreement, with bland stares, to
> >power-mongering priests.
> >
> >Quite to the contrary in my view.
>
> Nor mine. I've been married now for about 8 years and have a very
> high regard for the institution of marriage. What I have with my wife
> and my son isn't threatened at all if gays get married. I don't
> understand why *you* feel threatened by it.

To me it's not a matter of "feeling threatened" by some gay people down the
street being married or not. The social order we maintain in our society is
based on our values. There are those whose values approach moral anarchy
(anything goes). I'd prefer those people were in the minority and weren't
the ones to define our social order.

Since many of our values eminate over many generations far in the past, it's
hard to understand the real meaning of institutions such as marriage. I
think we take for granted the good effects traditional values has on
society. I'm sure Lloyd will now bring up slavery and gay bashing a la that
Shepard boy that was murdered a few years back as my brand of values.
Typical of him to look only for opportunities to spout off the same old
(must be memorized by now) lines. Of course, it's false anyway. My
progenitors from the south were Lincoln Republicans (which would have gotten
me killed 150 years ago) so don't even let that jaw drop open Lloyd.

"Brandon Sommerville" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Sun, 07 Dec 2003 05:43:35 GMT, "David J. Allen"
> <dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote:
>
> >"Brandon Sommerville" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >news:[email protected]...
> >>
> >> We're already in the long run now. With divorce rates as high as they
> >> are, marriage has apparently lost whatever sacred aspect there was to
> >> it to society in general.
> >
> >I disagree. Whatever the marriage failure rate has been or is, there are
> >still plenty of successful enough marriages and family units and the hope
> >for better success is always there.
>
> If someone presented you with a business model that had a 50% failure
> rate with a few great successes, would you consider it overall to be a
> success or would you recommend changing it?
>
> >> >> So gay families with either adopted kids or kids from prior
> >> >> relationships don't count?
> >> >
> >> >I'm not for gay adoption and kids from prior marriages don't mean
anything
> >> >legally in a new marriage of any stripe. Step parents don't have any
legal
> >> >obligations or rights to step children.
> >>
> >> They provide a stable environment for those kids to grow up in.
> >
> >Too often (not always) step-parents intrude on a childs relationship with
> >the only full-time parent they have left. And the dependent benefits of
> >marriage don't apply to second marriages. The biological parents retain
> >most of the protective benefits of marriage, even after divorce for the
sake
> >of the children unless an adoption occurs.
>
> So since step parents can be harmful to the family unit should we
> disallow re-marriage?
> --

There are times that I might just think so. I have friends inwhich the
father left and now the mom is involved with a guy that is really a jerk
(she doesn't see it... she's so worried about being alone) and her kids all
hate this guy. It looks like she's going to marry him any way. Makes me
think there ought to be a law.

There was a time, pre- no fault divorce, that getting a divorce wasn't easy.
There had to be justification. Our value shifts going away from traditional
values has made that a quaint thing of the past. Again, my point of view is
based on the principles of marriage and family being good and the right
thing for society. The trend is toward what's good and fair for the
individual based on a civil rights approach. That will never be constrained
to just gay marriage.

> Brandon Sommerville
> remove ".gov" to e-mail
>
> Definition of "Lottery":
> Millions of stupid people contributing
> to make one stupid person look smart.

On Sun, 07 Dec 2003 16:07:46 GMT, Brandon Sommerville
<[email protected]> wrote:

>On Sun, 07 Dec 2003 07:50:58 -0700, Bill Funk <[email protected]>
>wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 07 Dec 2003 02:22:35 GMT, Brandon Sommerville
>><[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>>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.
>>
>>Which concept would that be?
>>The one about making sure that everyone has access to health care?
>>Or the one about making sure that the government controls health care?
>
>Equal access to health care.

Every time I see "equal access to health care", it seems to include a
non-competitive system, where ALL health care MUST be delivered within
the system. There is never any room for care delivered without going
through the government-controlled system.

I don't like such a system, as it stifles elective procedures
needlessly.
--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"

On Sun, 07 Dec 2003 19:34:36 -0500, Greg <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>Brandon Sommerville wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 07 Dec 2003 12:23:43 -0500, Greg <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >
>> >Brandon Sommerville wrote:

>> >> Now, back to the real question, what do you specifically have against
>> >> gay marriage?
>> >
>> >The inconsistencies of the arguments being used to promote it (gays need to get "married"
>> >to get the legal benefits, but providing the legal benefits doesn't seem to be good
>> >enough), claiming the need to redefine words but only narrowly when convenient, among other
>> >reasons already mentioned here.
>>
>> None of this explains why it is so repugnant to so many that gays be
>> allowed to be legally married. Is your concept of marriage (a
>> relationship between two people who love each other) so weak that it
>> is threatened by gays expressing those same feelings and wanting to be
>> recognized in the same fashion?
>
>Negative, nor is that what I said.

I know it's not what you said. It's just that none of the arguments
presented seem to be a substantive reason not to allow them to get
married, just a desperate attempt to maintain the status quo.
--
Brandon Sommerville
remove ".gov" to e-mail

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

On Sun, 07 Dec 2003 19:33:44 -0500, Greg <[email protected]> wrote:

>
>
>Brandon Sommerville wrote:
>
>>
>> >Gay marriages wouldn't have gay divorces too?
>>
>> Irrelevant. The point was that marriage is apparently something too
>> valuable to risk tampering with. At a 50% failure rate, society
>> apparently doesn't consider it to be that valuable anymore.
>
>How would introducing gay marriage improve said "failure" rate? What is the
>magic percentage needed to necessitate gay marriage?

It wouldn't. The point is that marriage is no longer held to be a
truly sacred institution by society any more. If it was, there
wouldn't be so much failure.
--
Brandon Sommerville
remove ".gov" to e-mail

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

On Sun, 07 Dec 2003 23:05:07 GMT, DTJ <[email protected]> wrote:

>On Sun, 07 Dec 2003 16:07:46 GMT, Brandon Sommerville
><[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>If someone presented you with a business model that had a 50% failure
>
>Ah the typical liberal idiot method of making up facts to prove
>something we all know is false.
>
>If you told somebody that businesses have a failure rate of about 90%,
>they would argue how that isn't true because most businesses they know
>of go on for years. But it is true, because the rate is based on how
>many new businesses fail compared to how many are started each year.
>
>Which is how liberals came up with the divorce rate bull****. Of
>course, if you remove the liberal divorces, the rate is more like 10%.
>
>Funny, I wonder how liberals got together to make that happen.

I'd really love to see how you can make it so that, when the number of
divorces is about 1/2 the number of marriages, the divorce rate is
only 10%.
--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"

On Sun, 07 Dec 2003 16:07:44 GMT, Brandon Sommerville
<[email protected]> wrote:

>>Changing marriage into a civil right for <fill in the blank> rather than an
>>institution to bless our continued existence over the generations.
>
>And "our continued existence over the generations" means children,
>doesn't it?

In part, yes.
It also means self-defense. Which, of course, doesn't involve marriage
at all.
Is children within marriage the sole reason for marriage? Obviously
not, otherwise there would be a rule that any couple that gets married
must have children.
Marriage is a complex concept, and children, while a major part of
marriage, do not define a marriage.
--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"

On Sun, 07 Dec 2003 16:07:44 GMT, Brandon Sommerville
<[email protected]> wrote:

>>The notion that our rights are granted by the community is un-American.
>>Literally. In the monarchies of the past, rights were derived from the
>>monarch. They were the gods of their subjects. Communism claims all rights
>>eminate from the government or 'proletariet'.
>
>It's ironic that it's considered un-American, due to the fact that
>it's the American community that grants these rights. The state is
>limited by agreement in what it can or cannot take away from the
>people.

This is an interesting concept; some rights are granted by the
community (the right to drive, for example), while others are
guaranteed (and recognized as existing absent any government) by the
government, such as, for example, the right to life.

What is pecularly a concept of democratic forms of government is that
the community itself, and not the government, can grant rights.
The government can only codify them.

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

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?
>
>
> Still waiting for an answer to this question.
>
>
>>>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.
>
>
> I'm being serious...why aren't you?
>
>
>>The claim that health insurance is "out of reach" in the US is
>
>
> ...not a claim. It's a reality for a great many people.
>
>
>>I'm referring mainly to proposed changes toward nationalizing US
>>healthcare that would remove some of those options.
>
>
> 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.
>
> DS
>


Speaking of Texas, "The" CBC is running a report tonight on hospitals in
Texas turning people away and choosing the "least expensive" option
rather than the "most therapeutic", all because of lack of money!!

Hmmmmm. Big difference eh?

Dan

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

Yes, a policy which was rapidly adopted by all medical insurers. Look
up 'Diagnosis Related Groups', 'Groupers', and 'Risk Adjustment'.

> 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."

That has been a valid criticism of the way we do medical care since
the beginning: 'Doctors only get paid when you get sick, not when you
stay healthy'. All the more reason to prefer systems like Canada,
which use reimbursement rates to push cheap routine primary care (i.e.
vaccinations, prenatal vitamins, prompt and cheap treatments for
problems in their early and mild stages) over the American system,
which steers physicians to expensive glamorous secondary and tertiary
care (specialists and hospitalization); with obvious success in terms
of reduced rates of disease and death.

> . . .
> " "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]

All quite true, but the piece you omit is that private healthcare
plans have even less of a clue about how to measure quality, as
distinct from disease severity and patient mix, and what to do about
it. In fact, it's usually Medicare that leads the industry in things
like reimbursement strategies (see reference to DRGs, above), and
quality vs risk adjustment, and the private health plans that follow
where Medicare has broken new ice. It's hard to swallow the argument
that a single payer national healthcare plan will eliminate medical
research, when in fact all the medical policy research for decades has
been done by Medicare. Similarly, an explicit aim of Medicare had been
to funnel funds to those institutions of medical research and
education which therefore had higher costs for treatment. Private
plans decided quite a while back that they could save money by sending
patients to hospitals which did not have these expenses. And now that
the 'Tax Cuts Uber Alles!' folks have gotten their way, Medicare has
followed suit, so prepare to enjoy the fruits of massive cutbacks in
medical research and education, after the few years it takes for the
effects to travel down the pipelines.

Of course, I repeat, the one area in all these international
comparisons of outcomes where American medicine is at or near the top
in quality is in medical care for the elderly, especially the extreme
elderly, who are all covered by Medicare, the same state-sponsored
plan which you are referring to above.
For all those Americans under age 65, none of whom have Medicare, the
quality of their medical care compares with the worst in the
industrialized world.

>
> (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.

Yeah, like better medical care.

>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.

How would the cheap and easy availability of food in America relate to
the fact that America has rates of low birthweight and infant
mortality that look like what you'd find in Bangladesh? Other factors
involved, like lack of prenatal medical care for pregnant women?

Do you think folks in Canada, for instance, are going hungry? They
have Macdonald's and Burger King up there too, not to mention Tim
Horton's Donuts. However, they do have more primary doctors bugging
the people at every visit to eat right and exercise and keeping tabs
on them when they start to enter the danger zone, and make it
easier/cheaper for everyone to get annual checkups, instead of letting
the "poor people who have so much to eat that they are overweight" but
can't afford medical care just deteriorate until they hit the
emergency rooms needing massive, expensive, and continual care for the
rest of their lives.

>
> > 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.

You do realize that that tells you absolutely nothing about how US
care compares to care anywhere else, don't you? When my father needed
care, Canada flew him to Toronto where he got excellent care from one
of the world's best cardiac surgeons, who has refused several offers
to go to the US and make more money because he's not exactly hurting
for money, even under the Canadian payment schedule, because he feels
he can help more people in Canada rather than just the subset of those
who can afford it in the US, and because he feels that the Canadian
system is less restrictive than American insurers on his ability to
innovate and improve procedures, enabling cardiac patients from all
over the world (including Americans) to sponge off the benefits of
research paid for by the Canadian system.
<http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=PureSearch&db=PubMed&details_term=(david%20te%5Bau%5D%20AND%20notpubref%5Bsb%5D)>

On Mon, 08 Dec 2003 00:32:32 GMT, "David J. Allen"
<dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote:
>
>"Brandon Sommerville" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...

>> And "our continued existence over the generations" means children,
>> doesn't it?
>>
>
>Not just physical existence, but spiritual, social, cultural, etc.,
>etc....all that stuff. Our values.

And gays don't have those values?

>> It's ironic that it's considered un-American, due to the fact that
>> it's the American community that grants these rights. The state is
>> limited by agreement in what it can or cannot take away from the
>> people.
>>
>That's not true. The premise of our constitution is that there are certain
>rights that are inalienable. They don't come from any community. They just
>are and can never be taken away. There are other's that do derive from the
>will of the people, but the "inalienable" ones the state can never take away
>regardless of any agreement.

Semantics. It was agreed at the formation of the community that those
rights wouldn't be able to be revoked by the community, that doesn't
mean that they don't derive from the community.

>> Patriot Act, anyone?
>
>Leftist fantasy. All of their predictions of lost rights have been shown to
>be wrong.

Haven't you heard of Guatanamo Bay?

>> Isn't that what I just said?
>>
>I think we agree. It's the unfortunate nature of politics.

The problem with politics is that no matter who you vote for a
politician always gets in.

>> Both of those were started before things got so badly entrenched.
>>
>??? badly entrenched? If you mean politically polarized, then I think that
>has to do with the Democrats hold on power having slipped in recent years.
>They're going to the trenches to get it back.

By entrenched I mean the prevailing attitudes between the left and the
right. That being that any idea coming from the other side is wrong
due to where it came from, not the nature of the idea.

>> And somehow gays getting married will make this worse?
>>
>I don't believe the existence of a married gay couple "does" anything to
>society. It works the other way around. Our values reflect in our laws.
>The way we regard marriage as a whole has a very significant effect on
>society and the social order we place on society via the law. If we were to
>regard marriage independent of the traditional view (man, woman, children)
>then that is an indication of our values and would likewise be manifested in
>all our laws. It would be a quantum shift in the traditions of what people
>have believed makes society good.

So accepting gays makes society bad?

>> If it wasn't forbidden none of this would matter!
>
>People generally value modesty.

*Americans* generally value modesty. Comes from being founded by
Puritans.

>The younger generations and dirty old men
>have some difficulty understanding it (nothing new), but it is nonetheless
>an important social value. It's reflected in public nudity laws and apply
>to both genders... but not the same way. If we had a gender normal society,
>the law couldn't discriminate between men and women wrt nudity. That
>matters to most people. If that changes, we'll have topless women at the
>park and beaches and maybe even public sex. How about that guys!

Hell, what's wrong with topless women?!

In all seriousness though, women being topless cause so much stir
because it's banned. Try going to a topless beach in Europe or
Australia. No one cares! In most of North America it's just that
it's forbidden, thus people get excited when they see it. There's
such a huge shame factor associated with our bodies over here that
it's disgusting, and that comes directly from those Puritans that I
mentioned earlier. A friend of mine has a neighbour who firmly
believes that the only time you should be naked is when changing
clothes or having a bath and that kids who run around naked will have
body issues. Only the mother should change the baby and then in
private because other people seeing the baby naked will give the baby
stress. Very Victorian, absolutely disgusting.

>> The problem with the Equal Rights Amendment was that it was simply the
>> pendulum swinging the other way instead of rational thought. If it
>> came down to a choice between a more qualified man and a less
>> qualified woman, the woman was to be chosen because she was a woman.
>> Before that it was the other way around. The *right* way to do it is
>> closer to being in place now, where the gender of the person is
>> irrelevant. There needs to be a single standard and if someone can
>> meet it or exceed it, the job is theirs.
>>
>That's not what the equal rights amendment was. What you descibe sounds
>like Affirmative Action.

Then I'm not sure what the Equal Rights Amendment is.
--
Brandon Sommerville
remove ".gov" to e-mail

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

On Mon, 08 Dec 2003 08:36:47 -0700, Bill Funk <[email protected]>
wrote:

>Every time I see "equal access to health care", it seems to include a
>non-competitive system, where ALL health care MUST be delivered within
>the system. There is never any room for care delivered without going
>through the government-controlled system.
>
>I don't like such a system, as it stifles elective procedures
>needlessly.

You can pay for elective care if you want it, it's just that the
necessities are all covered by the gov't. If there is too much of a
need for a specific procedure then setting it up on a fee basis simply
means that the wealthy will be able to get ahead of those who can't
afford to pay for the procedure.
--
Brandon Sommerville
remove ".gov" to e-mail

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

On Mon, 08 Dec 2003 00:51:34 GMT, "David J. Allen"
<dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote:
>
>"Brandon Sommerville" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...

>> Nor mine. I've been married now for about 8 years and have a very
>> high regard for the institution of marriage. What I have with my wife
>> and my son isn't threatened at all if gays get married. I don't
>> understand why *you* feel threatened by it.
>
>To me it's not a matter of "feeling threatened" by some gay people down the
>street being married or not. The social order we maintain in our society is
>based on our values. There are those whose values approach moral anarchy
>(anything goes). I'd prefer those people were in the minority and weren't
>the ones to define our social order.

The problem with this assumption is that you appear to be assuming
that gays fall into the moral anarchy group. There are a lot more
straight moral anarchists than gay, many of whom just want the same
things from a relationship that you and I do (minus kids for most, of
course).

>Since many of our values eminate over many generations far in the past, it's
>hard to understand the real meaning of institutions such as marriage. I
>think we take for granted the good effects traditional values has on
>society.

True enough, but holding on to something just because that's the way
it's always been done is never a good thing. *Everything* should be
re-evaluated on a fairly regularly basis.

>I'm sure Lloyd will now bring up slavery and gay bashing a la that
>Shepard boy that was murdered a few years back as my brand of values.
>Typical of him to look only for opportunities to spout off the same old
>(must be memorized by now) lines. Of course, it's false anyway. My
>progenitors from the south were Lincoln Republicans (which would have gotten
>me killed 150 years ago) so don't even let that jaw drop open Lloyd.

Lloyd's a hypocritical idiot, I'd kill file him if it wasn't so funny
to read his stuff.
--
Brandon Sommerville
remove ".gov" to e-mail

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