In article <bqitam$of5$3@puck.cc.emory.edu>, Lloyd Parker wrote:
> Need dialysis? No hospital is required to do that for free, for example.

Government health care programs already cover dialysis. In fact the price
(LOW) the government pays is a if not the driving factor in care in this
area. The government payment scheme for 3-times-a-week dialysis is
a major obstacle to improving the quality of care, the quality of
people's lives, and their surviviability.

I am really glad you made a point of dialysis parker, because it is one
treatment that is required to keep people with renal failure alive but one
where government price controls dominate what people get with regards
to care. It is a great example of the arrogant way government does things
that has a negative effect on people. Want better care than 3 times a
week? Government says you can't have it, they'll only pay for that. If
you want something better, you better pay for it yourself or hope it can
work within the government 3-times-a-week cost model. You've stuck your
foot in your mouth once again Parker.

 

Fair enough. better than most arguments in this thread.

"z" <gzuckier@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:b5b4685f.0312020747.3cbd2f04@posting.google.c om...
> "Joe" <me@privacy.net (jo_ratner@yahoo.com)> wrote in message
news:<bqfvtf$21bs02$1@ID-207166.news.uni-berlin.de>...
> > "Fermentation is, by definition, carried out without oxygen and
therefore
> > produces no CO2."
> > Go back to grade school:
> > "Alcohol fermentation is done by yeast and some kinds of bacteria. The
> > "waste" products of this process are ethanol and carbon dioxide
>
> Alcoholic fermentation doesn't count. Because I say so, that's why.
> (Sorry, best reply I could do).

 

Fair enough. better than most arguments in this thread.

"z" <gzuckier@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:b5b4685f.0312020747.3cbd2f04@posting.google.c om...
> "Joe" <me@privacy.net (jo_ratner@yahoo.com)> wrote in message
news:<bqfvtf$21bs02$1@ID-207166.news.uni-berlin.de>...
> > "Fermentation is, by definition, carried out without oxygen and
therefore
> > produces no CO2."
> > Go back to grade school:
> > "Alcohol fermentation is done by yeast and some kinds of bacteria. The
> > "waste" products of this process are ethanol and carbon dioxide
>
> Alcoholic fermentation doesn't count. Because I say so, that's why.
> (Sorry, best reply I could do).

 

Fair enough. better than most arguments in this thread.

"z" <gzuckier@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:b5b4685f.0312020747.3cbd2f04@posting.google.c om...
> "Joe" <me@privacy.net (jo_ratner@yahoo.com)> wrote in message
news:<bqfvtf$21bs02$1@ID-207166.news.uni-berlin.de>...
> > "Fermentation is, by definition, carried out without oxygen and
therefore
> > produces no CO2."
> > Go back to grade school:
> > "Alcohol fermentation is done by yeast and some kinds of bacteria. The
> > "waste" products of this process are ethanol and carbon dioxide
>
> Alcoholic fermentation doesn't count. Because I say so, that's why.
> (Sorry, best reply I could do).

 

Lloyd Parker wrote:

> So are conservatives -- telling people what kind of --- to have, what genders
> can marry, what a woman can do with her body, etc.

It is not just conservatives who oppose the redefinition of "marriage."
Any reasonable person should oppose this sort of reckless redefinition
of a long established legal / social / religious institution. If same
--- couples want to form a long term commitment to each other, I think
that is fine. If they feel they need a governmental sanction to this
commitment, then pass a law that creates a new class of civil union. But
trying to call this a "marriage" is an insult to millions of American
and serves no useful purpose.

Ed

 

Lloyd Parker wrote:

> So are conservatives -- telling people what kind of --- to have, what genders
> can marry, what a woman can do with her body, etc.

It is not just conservatives who oppose the redefinition of "marriage."
Any reasonable person should oppose this sort of reckless redefinition
of a long established legal / social / religious institution. If same
--- couples want to form a long term commitment to each other, I think
that is fine. If they feel they need a governmental sanction to this
commitment, then pass a law that creates a new class of civil union. But
trying to call this a "marriage" is an insult to millions of American
and serves no useful purpose.

Ed

 

Lloyd Parker wrote:

> So are conservatives -- telling people what kind of --- to have, what genders
> can marry, what a woman can do with her body, etc.

It is not just conservatives who oppose the redefinition of "marriage."
Any reasonable person should oppose this sort of reckless redefinition
of a long established legal / social / religious institution. If same
--- couples want to form a long term commitment to each other, I think
that is fine. If they feel they need a governmental sanction to this
commitment, then pass a law that creates a new class of civil union. But
trying to call this a "marriage" is an insult to millions of American
and serves no useful purpose.

Ed

 

"C. E. White" <cewhite3@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:3F7CE3E2.B772E342@mindspring.com...
>
>
> Lloyd Parker wrote:
>
> > So are conservatives -- telling people what kind of --- to have, what
genders
> > can marry, what a woman can do with her body, etc.
>
> It is not just conservatives who oppose the redefinition of "marriage."
> Any reasonable person should oppose this sort of reckless redefinition
> of a long established legal / social / religious institution. If same
> --- couples want to form a long term commitment to each other, I think
> that is fine. If they feel they need a governmental sanction to this
> commitment, then pass a law that creates a new class of civil union. But
> trying to call this a "marriage" is an insult to millions of American
> and serves no useful purpose.
>
> Ed

Oh, sure it does, Ed, if recognized as "marriage" they then get huge tax
and benefits advantages, all of which are denied singles.

 

"C. E. White" <cewhite3@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:3F7CE3E2.B772E342@mindspring.com...
>
>
> Lloyd Parker wrote:
>
> > So are conservatives -- telling people what kind of --- to have, what
genders
> > can marry, what a woman can do with her body, etc.
>
> It is not just conservatives who oppose the redefinition of "marriage."
> Any reasonable person should oppose this sort of reckless redefinition
> of a long established legal / social / religious institution. If same
> --- couples want to form a long term commitment to each other, I think
> that is fine. If they feel they need a governmental sanction to this
> commitment, then pass a law that creates a new class of civil union. But
> trying to call this a "marriage" is an insult to millions of American
> and serves no useful purpose.
>
> Ed

Oh, sure it does, Ed, if recognized as "marriage" they then get huge tax
and benefits advantages, all of which are denied singles.

 

"C. E. White" <cewhite3@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:3F7CE3E2.B772E342@mindspring.com...
>
>
> Lloyd Parker wrote:
>
> > So are conservatives -- telling people what kind of --- to have, what
genders
> > can marry, what a woman can do with her body, etc.
>
> It is not just conservatives who oppose the redefinition of "marriage."
> Any reasonable person should oppose this sort of reckless redefinition
> of a long established legal / social / religious institution. If same
> --- couples want to form a long term commitment to each other, I think
> that is fine. If they feel they need a governmental sanction to this
> commitment, then pass a law that creates a new class of civil union. But
> trying to call this a "marriage" is an insult to millions of American
> and serves no useful purpose.
>
> Ed

Oh, sure it does, Ed, if recognized as "marriage" they then get huge tax
and benefits advantages, all of which are denied singles.