Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
#6411
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safetycanbe misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
In article <fnjvsvsmu5n84q4k1m457amfb37muifqib@4ax.com>,
Bill Funk <bfunk33@pipping.com> wrote:
>On Thu, 04 Dec 03 10:25:54 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
>wrote:
>
>>Canada's a democracy; if their health care system is so bad, why haven't the
>>people gotten rid of it? England's is even more socialized, but even the
>>conservative Thatcher realized it was so popular she didn't dare touch it.
>
>It's a truth that one of democracy's worse points is that people, when
>they discover that they can vote themselves something for 'free', will
>do so.
>It's human nature.
>
So you'd prefer, what, a monarchy? A theocracy to impose your religious
beliefs on others?
Bill Funk <bfunk33@pipping.com> wrote:
>On Thu, 04 Dec 03 10:25:54 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
>wrote:
>
>>Canada's a democracy; if their health care system is so bad, why haven't the
>>people gotten rid of it? England's is even more socialized, but even the
>>conservative Thatcher realized it was so popular she didn't dare touch it.
>
>It's a truth that one of democracy's worse points is that people, when
>they discover that they can vote themselves something for 'free', will
>do so.
>It's human nature.
>
So you'd prefer, what, a monarchy? A theocracy to impose your religious
beliefs on others?
#6412
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safetycanbe misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
In article <fnjvsvsmu5n84q4k1m457amfb37muifqib@4ax.com>,
Bill Funk <bfunk33@pipping.com> wrote:
>On Thu, 04 Dec 03 10:25:54 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
>wrote:
>
>>Canada's a democracy; if their health care system is so bad, why haven't the
>>people gotten rid of it? England's is even more socialized, but even the
>>conservative Thatcher realized it was so popular she didn't dare touch it.
>
>It's a truth that one of democracy's worse points is that people, when
>they discover that they can vote themselves something for 'free', will
>do so.
>It's human nature.
>
So you'd prefer, what, a monarchy? A theocracy to impose your religious
beliefs on others?
Bill Funk <bfunk33@pipping.com> wrote:
>On Thu, 04 Dec 03 10:25:54 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
>wrote:
>
>>Canada's a democracy; if their health care system is so bad, why haven't the
>>people gotten rid of it? England's is even more socialized, but even the
>>conservative Thatcher realized it was so popular she didn't dare touch it.
>
>It's a truth that one of democracy's worse points is that people, when
>they discover that they can vote themselves something for 'free', will
>do so.
>It's human nature.
>
So you'd prefer, what, a monarchy? A theocracy to impose your religious
beliefs on others?
#6413
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
In article <qdkvsv4eltr4o1s3qi10i11cs5gbkp925r@4ax.com>,
Bill Funk <bfunk33@pipping.com> wrote:
>On Thu, 04 Dec 03 10:19:03 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
>wrote:
>
>>But there are no tax benefits to "civil unions", no inheritance benefits, no
>>insurance benefits, etc.
>
>You've never heard of common law marriage?
>
Most states don't recognize that anymore.
Bill Funk <bfunk33@pipping.com> wrote:
>On Thu, 04 Dec 03 10:19:03 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
>wrote:
>
>>But there are no tax benefits to "civil unions", no inheritance benefits, no
>>insurance benefits, etc.
>
>You've never heard of common law marriage?
>
Most states don't recognize that anymore.
#6414
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
In article <qdkvsv4eltr4o1s3qi10i11cs5gbkp925r@4ax.com>,
Bill Funk <bfunk33@pipping.com> wrote:
>On Thu, 04 Dec 03 10:19:03 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
>wrote:
>
>>But there are no tax benefits to "civil unions", no inheritance benefits, no
>>insurance benefits, etc.
>
>You've never heard of common law marriage?
>
Most states don't recognize that anymore.
Bill Funk <bfunk33@pipping.com> wrote:
>On Thu, 04 Dec 03 10:19:03 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
>wrote:
>
>>But there are no tax benefits to "civil unions", no inheritance benefits, no
>>insurance benefits, etc.
>
>You've never heard of common law marriage?
>
Most states don't recognize that anymore.
#6415
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
In article <qdkvsv4eltr4o1s3qi10i11cs5gbkp925r@4ax.com>,
Bill Funk <bfunk33@pipping.com> wrote:
>On Thu, 04 Dec 03 10:19:03 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
>wrote:
>
>>But there are no tax benefits to "civil unions", no inheritance benefits, no
>>insurance benefits, etc.
>
>You've never heard of common law marriage?
>
Most states don't recognize that anymore.
Bill Funk <bfunk33@pipping.com> wrote:
>On Thu, 04 Dec 03 10:19:03 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
>wrote:
>
>>But there are no tax benefits to "civil unions", no inheritance benefits, no
>>insurance benefits, etc.
>
>You've never heard of common law marriage?
>
Most states don't recognize that anymore.
#6416
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
In article <vsvl3ql92lu9d3@corp.supernews.com>,
"The Ancient One" <onlytheone@thetopknows.com> wrote:
>
>"Brandon Sommerville" <grimrod@mindless.com.gov> wrote in message
>news:7dc396f584336d32b246a944411c15de@news.terane ws.com...
>> On Thu, 4 Dec 2003 13:16:23 -0500, "The Ancient One"
>> <onlytheone@thetopknows.com> wrote:
>>
>> >And yet the exodus from Canada to the US for treatment continues
>unabaited.
>> >To be so bad here it is amazing that so many come here from so many
>> >countries, giving up free care for prompt, high quality care here. You
>get
>> >reallly sick there, you get a tumor that requires immediate surgery, but
>the
>> >system is over budget and you're put on a six to twelve month waiting
>list,
>> >and then we'll see how fast you come running to America for immediate
>> >treatment.
>>
>> 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?
>
>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.
>considering he was outwardly healthy and active. Would he have lived that
>long? How could he have been sure?
>I know if I need medical treatment I can get it, NOW, now later. To me, that
>is important. I really don't care how Canada does it, if you're happy great.
>I'm just against Lloyd and his cronies trying to change ours, which would
>stifle it, and lower the quaility of care for everyone, including Canadians.
>
>
"The Ancient One" <onlytheone@thetopknows.com> wrote:
>
>"Brandon Sommerville" <grimrod@mindless.com.gov> wrote in message
>news:7dc396f584336d32b246a944411c15de@news.terane ws.com...
>> On Thu, 4 Dec 2003 13:16:23 -0500, "The Ancient One"
>> <onlytheone@thetopknows.com> wrote:
>>
>> >And yet the exodus from Canada to the US for treatment continues
>unabaited.
>> >To be so bad here it is amazing that so many come here from so many
>> >countries, giving up free care for prompt, high quality care here. You
>get
>> >reallly sick there, you get a tumor that requires immediate surgery, but
>the
>> >system is over budget and you're put on a six to twelve month waiting
>list,
>> >and then we'll see how fast you come running to America for immediate
>> >treatment.
>>
>> 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?
>
>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.
>considering he was outwardly healthy and active. Would he have lived that
>long? How could he have been sure?
>I know if I need medical treatment I can get it, NOW, now later. To me, that
>is important. I really don't care how Canada does it, if you're happy great.
>I'm just against Lloyd and his cronies trying to change ours, which would
>stifle it, and lower the quaility of care for everyone, including Canadians.
>
>
#6417
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
In article <vsvl3ql92lu9d3@corp.supernews.com>,
"The Ancient One" <onlytheone@thetopknows.com> wrote:
>
>"Brandon Sommerville" <grimrod@mindless.com.gov> wrote in message
>news:7dc396f584336d32b246a944411c15de@news.terane ws.com...
>> On Thu, 4 Dec 2003 13:16:23 -0500, "The Ancient One"
>> <onlytheone@thetopknows.com> wrote:
>>
>> >And yet the exodus from Canada to the US for treatment continues
>unabaited.
>> >To be so bad here it is amazing that so many come here from so many
>> >countries, giving up free care for prompt, high quality care here. You
>get
>> >reallly sick there, you get a tumor that requires immediate surgery, but
>the
>> >system is over budget and you're put on a six to twelve month waiting
>list,
>> >and then we'll see how fast you come running to America for immediate
>> >treatment.
>>
>> 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?
>
>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.
>considering he was outwardly healthy and active. Would he have lived that
>long? How could he have been sure?
>I know if I need medical treatment I can get it, NOW, now later. To me, that
>is important. I really don't care how Canada does it, if you're happy great.
>I'm just against Lloyd and his cronies trying to change ours, which would
>stifle it, and lower the quaility of care for everyone, including Canadians.
>
>
"The Ancient One" <onlytheone@thetopknows.com> wrote:
>
>"Brandon Sommerville" <grimrod@mindless.com.gov> wrote in message
>news:7dc396f584336d32b246a944411c15de@news.terane ws.com...
>> On Thu, 4 Dec 2003 13:16:23 -0500, "The Ancient One"
>> <onlytheone@thetopknows.com> wrote:
>>
>> >And yet the exodus from Canada to the US for treatment continues
>unabaited.
>> >To be so bad here it is amazing that so many come here from so many
>> >countries, giving up free care for prompt, high quality care here. You
>get
>> >reallly sick there, you get a tumor that requires immediate surgery, but
>the
>> >system is over budget and you're put on a six to twelve month waiting
>list,
>> >and then we'll see how fast you come running to America for immediate
>> >treatment.
>>
>> 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?
>
>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.
>considering he was outwardly healthy and active. Would he have lived that
>long? How could he have been sure?
>I know if I need medical treatment I can get it, NOW, now later. To me, that
>is important. I really don't care how Canada does it, if you're happy great.
>I'm just against Lloyd and his cronies trying to change ours, which would
>stifle it, and lower the quaility of care for everyone, including Canadians.
>
>
#6418
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
In article <vsvl3ql92lu9d3@corp.supernews.com>,
"The Ancient One" <onlytheone@thetopknows.com> wrote:
>
>"Brandon Sommerville" <grimrod@mindless.com.gov> wrote in message
>news:7dc396f584336d32b246a944411c15de@news.terane ws.com...
>> On Thu, 4 Dec 2003 13:16:23 -0500, "The Ancient One"
>> <onlytheone@thetopknows.com> wrote:
>>
>> >And yet the exodus from Canada to the US for treatment continues
>unabaited.
>> >To be so bad here it is amazing that so many come here from so many
>> >countries, giving up free care for prompt, high quality care here. You
>get
>> >reallly sick there, you get a tumor that requires immediate surgery, but
>the
>> >system is over budget and you're put on a six to twelve month waiting
>list,
>> >and then we'll see how fast you come running to America for immediate
>> >treatment.
>>
>> 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?
>
>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.
>considering he was outwardly healthy and active. Would he have lived that
>long? How could he have been sure?
>I know if I need medical treatment I can get it, NOW, now later. To me, that
>is important. I really don't care how Canada does it, if you're happy great.
>I'm just against Lloyd and his cronies trying to change ours, which would
>stifle it, and lower the quaility of care for everyone, including Canadians.
>
>
"The Ancient One" <onlytheone@thetopknows.com> wrote:
>
>"Brandon Sommerville" <grimrod@mindless.com.gov> wrote in message
>news:7dc396f584336d32b246a944411c15de@news.terane ws.com...
>> On Thu, 4 Dec 2003 13:16:23 -0500, "The Ancient One"
>> <onlytheone@thetopknows.com> wrote:
>>
>> >And yet the exodus from Canada to the US for treatment continues
>unabaited.
>> >To be so bad here it is amazing that so many come here from so many
>> >countries, giving up free care for prompt, high quality care here. You
>get
>> >reallly sick there, you get a tumor that requires immediate surgery, but
>the
>> >system is over budget and you're put on a six to twelve month waiting
>list,
>> >and then we'll see how fast you come running to America for immediate
>> >treatment.
>>
>> 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?
>
>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.
>considering he was outwardly healthy and active. Would he have lived that
>long? How could he have been sure?
>I know if I need medical treatment I can get it, NOW, now later. To me, that
>is important. I really don't care how Canada does it, if you're happy great.
>I'm just against Lloyd and his cronies trying to change ours, which would
>stifle it, and lower the quaility of care for everyone, including Canadians.
>
>
#6419
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety canbe misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
In article <4tkvsv8snjqk1gb7ec6f6556d7ck8dpikf@4ax.com>,
Bill Funk <bfunk33@pipping.com> wrote:
>On Thu, 04 Dec 03 10:23:56 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
>wrote:
>
>>>Marriage, in our culture (Judeo/Christian) has been historically
>>
>>But the US government, not being JudeoChristian or any religion, should not
>>reflect religious bias, should it?
>
>Depends on how you look at it.
>The government is made up of 'the people'.
>Those people's lives are, at least in part, shaped by their religion.
>To expect their government to be completely divorced from that
>religion (whatever religion it is, or even the combination of
>religions it is here) is being unrealistic. It's asking the people to
>ignore what they believe in.
Or asking them to not force others to live like the majority wants. You seem
to be advocating the Taliban style of government -- those who are in power get
to enforce their religious beliefs on everybody else.
>
>It is a goal of our government, at this time, to attempt to divorce
>itself from all religion. Is that good?
>How can we expect our government to come up with laws that have no
>base? No anchor at all? How can we possibly expect to base our laws on
>the human experience, and then expect to deny a large part of that
>experience?
>
>I'm not proposing a theocracy, but I do think that trying to deny all
>religious beliefs is simply impossible, and, as such, should be
>recognized.
>
Bill Funk <bfunk33@pipping.com> wrote:
>On Thu, 04 Dec 03 10:23:56 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
>wrote:
>
>>>Marriage, in our culture (Judeo/Christian) has been historically
>>
>>But the US government, not being JudeoChristian or any religion, should not
>>reflect religious bias, should it?
>
>Depends on how you look at it.
>The government is made up of 'the people'.
>Those people's lives are, at least in part, shaped by their religion.
>To expect their government to be completely divorced from that
>religion (whatever religion it is, or even the combination of
>religions it is here) is being unrealistic. It's asking the people to
>ignore what they believe in.
Or asking them to not force others to live like the majority wants. You seem
to be advocating the Taliban style of government -- those who are in power get
to enforce their religious beliefs on everybody else.
>
>It is a goal of our government, at this time, to attempt to divorce
>itself from all religion. Is that good?
>How can we expect our government to come up with laws that have no
>base? No anchor at all? How can we possibly expect to base our laws on
>the human experience, and then expect to deny a large part of that
>experience?
>
>I'm not proposing a theocracy, but I do think that trying to deny all
>religious beliefs is simply impossible, and, as such, should be
>recognized.
>
#6420
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety canbe misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
In article <4tkvsv8snjqk1gb7ec6f6556d7ck8dpikf@4ax.com>,
Bill Funk <bfunk33@pipping.com> wrote:
>On Thu, 04 Dec 03 10:23:56 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
>wrote:
>
>>>Marriage, in our culture (Judeo/Christian) has been historically
>>
>>But the US government, not being JudeoChristian or any religion, should not
>>reflect religious bias, should it?
>
>Depends on how you look at it.
>The government is made up of 'the people'.
>Those people's lives are, at least in part, shaped by their religion.
>To expect their government to be completely divorced from that
>religion (whatever religion it is, or even the combination of
>religions it is here) is being unrealistic. It's asking the people to
>ignore what they believe in.
Or asking them to not force others to live like the majority wants. You seem
to be advocating the Taliban style of government -- those who are in power get
to enforce their religious beliefs on everybody else.
>
>It is a goal of our government, at this time, to attempt to divorce
>itself from all religion. Is that good?
>How can we expect our government to come up with laws that have no
>base? No anchor at all? How can we possibly expect to base our laws on
>the human experience, and then expect to deny a large part of that
>experience?
>
>I'm not proposing a theocracy, but I do think that trying to deny all
>religious beliefs is simply impossible, and, as such, should be
>recognized.
>
Bill Funk <bfunk33@pipping.com> wrote:
>On Thu, 04 Dec 03 10:23:56 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
>wrote:
>
>>>Marriage, in our culture (Judeo/Christian) has been historically
>>
>>But the US government, not being JudeoChristian or any religion, should not
>>reflect religious bias, should it?
>
>Depends on how you look at it.
>The government is made up of 'the people'.
>Those people's lives are, at least in part, shaped by their religion.
>To expect their government to be completely divorced from that
>religion (whatever religion it is, or even the combination of
>religions it is here) is being unrealistic. It's asking the people to
>ignore what they believe in.
Or asking them to not force others to live like the majority wants. You seem
to be advocating the Taliban style of government -- those who are in power get
to enforce their religious beliefs on everybody else.
>
>It is a goal of our government, at this time, to attempt to divorce
>itself from all religion. Is that good?
>How can we expect our government to come up with laws that have no
>base? No anchor at all? How can we possibly expect to base our laws on
>the human experience, and then expect to deny a large part of that
>experience?
>
>I'm not proposing a theocracy, but I do think that trying to deny all
>religious beliefs is simply impossible, and, as such, should be
>recognized.
>