Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers

B

Brandon Sommerville

Guest

• Dec 8, 2003

• #2,541

On Mon, 08 Dec 2003 01:08:22 GMT, "David J. Allen"
<dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote:
>
>"Brandon Sommerville" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...

>> 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.

Would it have been better had the father been forced to stay?

>There was a time, pre- no fault divorce, that getting a divorce wasn't easy.

How do you prove emotional abuse?

>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.

Having seen enough couples where one of the members was abusive, I'm
glad that people are no longer forced to stay together if they don't
want to.

It's interesting that you suggest that marriage not be about what you
can get for yourself. How many times have you heard women say that
they will only marry a guy who makes at least X amount of money? Or
guys who marry a woman based on how she looks?
--
Brandon Sommerville
remove ".gov" to e-mail

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

 

Z

z

Guest

• Dec 8, 2003

• #2,542

"George" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<PVvAb.7302$5g.3781@okepread04>...
> Why is this **** in the car groups?

Not familiar with the concept of a 'thread', are you?

 

D

Dan Gates

Guest

• Dec 8, 2003

• #2,543

Bill Funk 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?
>


In most provinces, charging extra for a "covered service" is illegal.
If a service is not covered, then you can charge whatever the market
will pay (ie, purely cosmetic surgery, etc). Most physicians that wish
to increase their income work for an emergency department or after-hours
clinic. The employer charges the province for the service, and the
doctor gets paid either by salary or by the hour.

Dan

 

Z

z

Guest

• Dec 8, 2003

• #2,544

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

> > >I have a friend who went to the Doctor for a routine physical. The Doctor
> > >did not like whaat he saw on the treadmill test and checked him into the
> > >hospital, where he had a balloon angioplasty that same afternoon. How long
> > >would he have waited "on the list" in Canada for the same treatment,
> >
> > How long would he have waited here if he were poor or had no insurance? He
> > wouldn't have even had the routine physical, and you know it.
>
> Only in LloydLand. Medicare, Medicaid, and state medical assistance in the USA
> pays for such services every day. Many hospitals and their doctors operate free
> clinics for low income patients in addition to this.

And you think that this care is somehow 'free'? Talk about
fantasyland. You think that the large cost of the emergency C-section
for the pregnant woman who can't afford to see an obstretician or get
prenatal vitamins aren't a cause of the average American paying twice
as much total for healthcare as the average Canadian, so it must all
be because American medical care is twice as good?

 

D

Dan Gates

Guest

• Dec 8, 2003

• #2,545

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

I've never known there to be any shortage of penises that would
volunteer for just such a mission(ary)!

|>))

Dan

 

D

Dan Gates

Guest

• Dec 8, 2003

• #2,546

Greg wrote:
>
> Lloyd Parker wrote:
>
>
>>In article <[email protected]>, Steve <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>Lloyd Parker wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>And the US refusing to buy any military hardware from Airbus isn't a form
>>
>>of
>>
>>>>subsidy to Boeing?
>>>>
>>>
>>>Nope. Lockheed, Northrop-Grumman, and even Gulfstream and Cessna are
>>>free to submit bids also. Its restricting military contracting to US
>>>companies, and I have no problem with that.
>>>
>>
>>It's subsidizing US companies by giving only them government contracts.
>
>
> Which is not a "subsidy."
>


But what do you call fully funding the development of say 3 x-planes by
three different manufacturers to fulfil a need for a fighter? All of
the technology of flight that is developed goes back into their
commercial applications at relatively little cost.

Dan

 

Z

z

Guest

• Dec 8, 2003

• #2,547

[email protected] (Matthew Russotto) wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> In article <[email protected]>,
> Brandon Sommerville <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >It's not quite that simple. If you need a procedure, they evaluate
> >how urgent it is. If it's extremely urgent you get bumped to the top
> >of the list. If it's not so urgent, you get on the waiting list and
> >get done after others who have been waiting longer are processed. If
> >you don't want to wait and can afford it, you go to somewhere that you
> >can pay for the procedure, which is down south. A great system if
> >you're wealthy.
> >
> >I know that no matter what happens, if I blow out my knee I'm going to
> >get an MRI. It may take 8 weeks, but I'll get it and it won't cost me
> >anything extra. Can you say the same thing?

No. That's because I have an American health insurance plan. Like
most, it penalizes doctors who send too many patients for expensive
things like MRIs so they ration them, to coin a phrase, to the
patients who obviously really need them. When my knee went out to the
point where I couldn't walk from my parking spot into work without
having to stop at least once halfway, I had to go to my 'gatekeeper'
primary care physician, who got me an appointment with a specialist 8
weeks later, who got an X-ray that showed absolutely nothing, and told
me to come back in two weeks if it didn't get better. This is a state
with several medical schools, many health insurers competing with each
other, medical centers in every two bit town, and one of the highest
qualities of medical care in the US, as best as anyone can measure
these things. The underlying fact is, of course, that as in most cases
there wasn't really anything the doctor could do for me in the end
except prescribe pain meds which were less effective than over the
counter Aleve, and just wait for whatever the hell it was to get
better on its own. Any MRIs would mostly be for his benefit, so I
couldn't sue him for negligence if it turned out to be cancer or
something.

>
> Not exactly. In my case (hip rather than knee, but same idea), it was
> same day (first MRI) and later in the week (second MRI) and it still
> didn't cost me anything extra. There was no urgency in the medical
> sense. The more complex MRA did take a month, because it had to be
> scheduled with both the radiology department and the MRI center. No
> rationing involved.

 

B

Brandon Sommerville

Guest

• Dec 8, 2003

• #2,548

On Mon, 08 Dec 2003 10:01:31 -0700, Bill Funk <[email protected]>
wrote:

>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.

And the rights that Americans view as "God given" are derived from the
original framework of what America is. Under that agreement that
formed the state were some rights that the state is not allowed to
take away. Remove the state however and those rights no longer exist.
--
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 8, 2003

• #2,549

On Mon, 08 Dec 2003 09:57:33 -0700, Bill Funk <[email protected]>
wrote:

>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.

I've never suggested otherwise. I have however seen people say gays
shouldn't get married because they can't have children.
--
Brandon Sommerville
remove ".gov" to e-mail

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

 

Z

z

Guest

• Dec 8, 2003

• #2,550

"The Ancient One"

See, case in point; obviously, the American medical care system has
kept this individual's body alive long after his brain has ceased
functioning, to everyone's detriment.

 

D

Dan Gates

Guest

• Dec 8, 2003

• #2,551

Matthew Russotto wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>,
> Dan Gates <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>Matthew Russotto wrote:
>>
>>>In article <[email protected]>,
>>>Brandon Sommerville <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>On Fri, 05 Dec 2003 13:24:57 -0600, [email protected]
>>>>(Matthew Russotto) wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>But in the US, we've got enough MRIs to service both the critical needs and
>>>the less-critical needs in a timely manner. Or do you want to hobble
>>>around in pain for 8 weeks longer? (or perhaps MUCH longer in my
>>>case, as it took three studies to diagnose the problem -- and then there's the
>>>issue of waiting periods for non-critical surgery in Canada)
>>
>>
>>Which wasn't really an issue until the last decade when massive cuts to
>>the system were carried out. If the funding was restored (yes, I know
>>it will cost me more money), this wouldn't be such a problem. Oh, there
>>was also the issue of cutting the enrolment at Medical Schools to reduce
>>the number of doctors out there. Seems they wanted 80% of the
>>physicians over 60 years old, uh-oh, now they are all retiring! What do
>>we do now??
>
>
> Looks like the problems of central control have hit you in the face --
> but you still can't see them.
>
>


No, the problem of overly-Conservative governments has hit us in the fan
(face) and we see them all too clearly!

Dan

 

B

Brandon Sommerville

Guest

• Dec 8, 2003

• #2,552

On Mon, 08 Dec 2003 09:29:04 -0700, Bill Funk <[email protected]>
wrote:

>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%.

Like a stopped clock, DTJ is sometimes right and his math in this case
is correct. His assumption (he's good at making an ass of himself) is
that 80% of failed marriages are due to liberals divorcing.
--
Brandon Sommerville
remove ".gov" to e-mail

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

 

B

Bill Funk

Guest

• Dec 8, 2003

• #2,553

On Mon, 08 Dec 2003 12:39:44 -0500, Dan Gates
<[email protected]> wrote:

>But what do you call fully funding the development of say 3 x-planes by
>three different manufacturers to fulfil a need for a fighter? All of
>the technology of flight that is developed goes back into their
>commercial applications at relatively little cost.

Not a subsidy.
Businesses learn by doing.
What they learn by doing one job can be used on other jobs, unless
that new technology is otherwise protected.
Whether it's the government paying for the new job, or just another
client, doesn't change that.
The fact that it's the gov't paying means that there's more money to
pour into the job, that's all.
--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"

 

B

Bill Funk

Guest

• Dec 8, 2003

• #2,554

On Mon, 08 Dec 2003 17:18:53 GMT, Brandon Sommerville
<[email protected]> wrote:

>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.

But that's not "equal access to health care".
That's access for all.
Two very different things.

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

 

Z

z

Guest

• Dec 8, 2003

• #2,555

Jeepers <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> In article <[email protected]>,
> [email protected] (z) wrote:
>
> >
> > But 'supplementing' means replacing fossil fuels; just not replacing
> > 100% of fossil fuels. If we 'supplement' fossil fuels with wind power,
> > hydropower, solar power, cogeneration, etc. wherever such technologies
> > are appropriate, we will replace a large fraction of our fossil fuel
> > use.
>
> Yet another crossposting doofus.

Gee, you could start another crossposted thread commenting on
crossposted threads.
Maybe we could protect all the folks who are terribly bothered by
having to see topics they're not interested in showing up in whatever
newsgroups they happen to be reading. Since they don't seem to be able
to identify which newsgroup it is that is giving them such sorrow, I
guess everybody posting to the thread will have to identify what
newsgroup they are posting from, so that we can help these poor
suffering souls.
Hope that makes it all better for you.

 

B

Bill Funk

Guest

• Dec 8, 2003

• #2,556

On Mon, 08 Dec 2003 12:29:05 -0500, Dan Gates
<[email protected]> wrote:

>Bill Funk 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?
>>
>
>
>In most provinces, charging extra for a "covered service" is illegal.
>If a service is not covered, then you can charge whatever the market
>will pay (ie, purely cosmetic surgery, etc). Most physicians that wish
>to increase their income work for an emergency department or after-hours
>clinic. The employer charges the province for the service, and the
>doctor gets paid either by salary or by the hour.
>
>Dan

I have no first-hand experience with Canadian healthcare, so I ask
questions.
When Branden wrote, "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", that seems to say that money won't
get you medical care any faster than what the government system
provides.
You're saying the opposite.

Unless "the line" means the line for the government's system only, and
the line for care outside the system is a different line those with
more money can get into.

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

 

B

Bill Funk

Guest

• Dec 8, 2003

• #2,557

On Mon, 08 Dec 2003 17:43:43 GMT, Brandon Sommerville
<[email protected]> wrote:

>On Mon, 08 Dec 2003 10:01:31 -0700, Bill Funk <[email protected]>
>wrote:
>
>>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.
>
>And the rights that Americans view as "God given" are derived from the
>original framework of what America is. Under that agreement that
>formed the state were some rights that the state is not allowed to
>take away. Remove the state however and those rights no longer exist.

So the right to life is dependant on the existance of a government?
More particularly, the American government?
I have a hard time understanding how that can be said.

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

 

Z

z

Guest

• Dec 8, 2003

• #2,558

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

The 'conservative' point of view; healthcare has nothing to do with
keeping people alive, its only function is as an investment vehicle;
and a single payer government sponsored nonprofit healthplan would
louse that up for them, so what's the point of keeping people healthy
and alive longer?

 

Z

z

Guest

• Dec 8, 2003

• #2,559

Bill Funk <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> On 5 Dec 2003 09:59:45 -0800, [email protected] (z) wrote:
>
> >Bill Funk <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> >> On Tue, 02 Dec 2003 05:17:32 GMT, "David J. Allen"
> >> <dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >Reminds me of my experience in a country a few years ago that had "free"
> >> >(i.e., rationed) medical care for all. The demand for care outstripped the
> >> >supply and the only people who got decent medical care were the people with
> >> >money, who could pay for a private doctor. Everyone else had to go wait in
> >> >line at the clinic and hope for decent care.
> >>
> >> Well, Hillary's solution would have fixed that; any doctor caught
> >> giving care outside the approved system would be liable to legal
> >> prosecution, with penalties including fines, jail time & loss of
> >> license.
> >> A true utopia.
> >
> >Better now. Only doctors doing 'Partial Birth Abortions', whatever
> >those may be, get fines, jail time & loss of license. Much better.
>
> "whatever those may be..."?
> You use it as an example, but don't know what it is?

Well golly, I just can't seem to find anything by that name in the CPT
book. I suggest you try to send a letter to your healthcare insurer
asking if they reimburse for a 'Partial Birth Abortion' and see what
kind of answer you get.

 

Z

z

Guest

• Dec 8, 2003

• #2,560

The Ancient One" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...

>
> And yet, again, bus loads of people come to the US from Canada to have
> procedures like this performed at their own expense raher than wait 6 months
> for it in Canada. Your claims do not explain why these people are not
> receiving the free care you boast of.

Who? Where? I can't afford an angioplasty without a health plan paying
for it, can you? Why are there so many Canadians who can? Are they
that much richer than Americans? I've been asking this question for a
year and nobody can come up with anything concrete. It's just another
rightwing myth.
On the other hand, there are certainly Americans going to Canada to
get pharmaceuticals, and in some cases cheaper medical care; and also
to Mexico.