Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
#5511
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safetycanbe misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
In article <3FCD297E.ACDFBAB3@kinez.net>,
Bill Putney <bputney@kinez.net> wrote:
>
>
>Lloyd Parker wrote:
>>
>> > And yes, the Canada care system with its people fleeing to the US to get
>> >needed healthcare would be an improvement in your alternate reality.
>>
>> Totally false.
>
>True. I personally witnessed this while actively spending over a year
>on an internet forum strictly for parents of a certain childhood form of
>cancer. There were people from all over the world on there, but
>particularly the U.S., Canada, and Britain. The gross malpractice that
>we witnessed on children in Canada due to its metered out healthcare was
>atrocious. The U.S. was the mecca of successful treatment.
If you're rich.
>
>Bill Putney
>(to reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
>address with "x")
>
>
>-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
>http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
>-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
Bill Putney <bputney@kinez.net> wrote:
>
>
>Lloyd Parker wrote:
>>
>> > And yes, the Canada care system with its people fleeing to the US to get
>> >needed healthcare would be an improvement in your alternate reality.
>>
>> Totally false.
>
>True. I personally witnessed this while actively spending over a year
>on an internet forum strictly for parents of a certain childhood form of
>cancer. There were people from all over the world on there, but
>particularly the U.S., Canada, and Britain. The gross malpractice that
>we witnessed on children in Canada due to its metered out healthcare was
>atrocious. The U.S. was the mecca of successful treatment.
If you're rich.
>
>Bill Putney
>(to reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
>address with "x")
>
>
>-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
>http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
>-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
#5512
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safetycanbe misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
In article <3FCD297E.ACDFBAB3@kinez.net>,
Bill Putney <bputney@kinez.net> wrote:
>
>
>Lloyd Parker wrote:
>>
>> > And yes, the Canada care system with its people fleeing to the US to get
>> >needed healthcare would be an improvement in your alternate reality.
>>
>> Totally false.
>
>True. I personally witnessed this while actively spending over a year
>on an internet forum strictly for parents of a certain childhood form of
>cancer. There were people from all over the world on there, but
>particularly the U.S., Canada, and Britain. The gross malpractice that
>we witnessed on children in Canada due to its metered out healthcare was
>atrocious. The U.S. was the mecca of successful treatment.
If you're rich.
>
>Bill Putney
>(to reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
>address with "x")
>
>
>-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
>http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
>-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
Bill Putney <bputney@kinez.net> wrote:
>
>
>Lloyd Parker wrote:
>>
>> > And yes, the Canada care system with its people fleeing to the US to get
>> >needed healthcare would be an improvement in your alternate reality.
>>
>> Totally false.
>
>True. I personally witnessed this while actively spending over a year
>on an internet forum strictly for parents of a certain childhood form of
>cancer. There were people from all over the world on there, but
>particularly the U.S., Canada, and Britain. The gross malpractice that
>we witnessed on children in Canada due to its metered out healthcare was
>atrocious. The U.S. was the mecca of successful treatment.
If you're rich.
>
>Bill Putney
>(to reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
>address with "x")
>
>
>-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
>http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
>-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
#5513
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety canbe misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
In article <3FCD2A75.F01F5664@kinez.net>,
Bill Putney <bputney@kinez.net> wrote:
>
>
>Lloyd Parker wrote:
>>
>> And yet they cover everybody and most of them have longer life spans and
less
>> infant mortality than the US. By any measure, those countries are
healthier.
>
>I can refer you to the parents of childhood cancer victims that would
>disagree with you.
>
Heck, you could refer me to Osama bin Laden himself; doesn't make you right.
Look at the numbers.
>Bill Putney
>(to reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
>address with "x")
>
>
>-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
>http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
>-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
Bill Putney <bputney@kinez.net> wrote:
>
>
>Lloyd Parker wrote:
>>
>> And yet they cover everybody and most of them have longer life spans and
less
>> infant mortality than the US. By any measure, those countries are
healthier.
>
>I can refer you to the parents of childhood cancer victims that would
>disagree with you.
>
Heck, you could refer me to Osama bin Laden himself; doesn't make you right.
Look at the numbers.
>Bill Putney
>(to reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
>address with "x")
>
>
>-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
>http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
>-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
#5514
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety canbe misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
In article <3FCD2A75.F01F5664@kinez.net>,
Bill Putney <bputney@kinez.net> wrote:
>
>
>Lloyd Parker wrote:
>>
>> And yet they cover everybody and most of them have longer life spans and
less
>> infant mortality than the US. By any measure, those countries are
healthier.
>
>I can refer you to the parents of childhood cancer victims that would
>disagree with you.
>
Heck, you could refer me to Osama bin Laden himself; doesn't make you right.
Look at the numbers.
>Bill Putney
>(to reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
>address with "x")
>
>
>-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
>http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
>-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
Bill Putney <bputney@kinez.net> wrote:
>
>
>Lloyd Parker wrote:
>>
>> And yet they cover everybody and most of them have longer life spans and
less
>> infant mortality than the US. By any measure, those countries are
healthier.
>
>I can refer you to the parents of childhood cancer victims that would
>disagree with you.
>
Heck, you could refer me to Osama bin Laden himself; doesn't make you right.
Look at the numbers.
>Bill Putney
>(to reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
>address with "x")
>
>
>-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
>http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
>-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
#5515
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety canbe misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
In article <3FCD2A75.F01F5664@kinez.net>,
Bill Putney <bputney@kinez.net> wrote:
>
>
>Lloyd Parker wrote:
>>
>> And yet they cover everybody and most of them have longer life spans and
less
>> infant mortality than the US. By any measure, those countries are
healthier.
>
>I can refer you to the parents of childhood cancer victims that would
>disagree with you.
>
Heck, you could refer me to Osama bin Laden himself; doesn't make you right.
Look at the numbers.
>Bill Putney
>(to reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
>address with "x")
>
>
>-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
>http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
>-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
Bill Putney <bputney@kinez.net> wrote:
>
>
>Lloyd Parker wrote:
>>
>> And yet they cover everybody and most of them have longer life spans and
less
>> infant mortality than the US. By any measure, those countries are
healthier.
>
>I can refer you to the parents of childhood cancer victims that would
>disagree with you.
>
Heck, you could refer me to Osama bin Laden himself; doesn't make you right.
Look at the numbers.
>Bill Putney
>(to reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
>address with "x")
>
>
>-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
>http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
>-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
#5516
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety canbe misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
In article <3FCD3824.12530D76@greg.greg>, Greg <greg@greg.greg> wrote:
>Lloyd Parker wrote:
>
>> In article <MK5zb.46$rE3.8@twister.socal.rr.com>,
>> "David J. Allen" <dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote:
>> >> >> Yeah, that's a requirement for a grant, like your predecessors here
>> >> >> say. You have to say 'and if funded, this project will destroy
>> >> >> capitalism and further the crypto-communist agenda, destroying the
>> >> >> middle class life style of myself and others like me and my family'.
>> >> >> Bravo, you've figured it out. Down with science!!!
>> >> >
>> >> >This is the strategy of the left. When they find them on the wrong
side
>> >of
>> >> >morality, they redefine morality. Now it's science. If you disagree
>> >with
>> >> >the "science" of global warming (and the global disaster it leads to)
>> >then
>> >> >you reject science. Likewise, morality is no longer fidelity, honesty,
>> >> >personal responsibility. It's now support for the policies of the
left,
>> >> >like gay marriage and adopting the Kyoto protocol.
>> >>
>> >> Spoken like a good little creationist.
>> >>
>> >
>> >Who? Me? I don't buy into "Creation Science". But the lefts
redefinition
>> >of "morality" and "science" is no different than what Creationists do to
>> >force fit science into Genesis. Only it's force fit of science (and
>> >religion) into anti-capitalism.
>>
>> No, you reject facts that don't fit your dogma. That's creationism.
>>
>> >
>> >> >
>> >> >The groups standing behind extreme environmentalists are Socialists and
>> >> >Communists. They are idealogical siblings to protect people from "evil
>> >> >corporations".
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> And the folks standing behind you and your ilk are Fascists and *****.
>> >Want
>> >> to call names? OK.
>> >
>> >Not at all. When you see who shows up to those anti-globalist
>> >(anti-corporate) demonstrations you see Socialist signs and booths all
over
>> >the place. No "name" calling was intended. And if you're looking for
nasty
>> >names to fit conservatives, you're really missing the mark with Fascist
and
>> >****. Those are on the opposite side of the political spectrum, away from
>> >limited government.
>>
>> So are conservatives -- telling people what kind of --- to have, what
genders
>> can marry, what a woman can do with her body, etc.
>
>Since when to conservatives as an aggregate tell people what kind of --- to
>have??? You're posting from an alternate reality again.
>
Sodomy laws?
>Lloyd Parker wrote:
>
>> In article <MK5zb.46$rE3.8@twister.socal.rr.com>,
>> "David J. Allen" <dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote:
>> >> >> Yeah, that's a requirement for a grant, like your predecessors here
>> >> >> say. You have to say 'and if funded, this project will destroy
>> >> >> capitalism and further the crypto-communist agenda, destroying the
>> >> >> middle class life style of myself and others like me and my family'.
>> >> >> Bravo, you've figured it out. Down with science!!!
>> >> >
>> >> >This is the strategy of the left. When they find them on the wrong
side
>> >of
>> >> >morality, they redefine morality. Now it's science. If you disagree
>> >with
>> >> >the "science" of global warming (and the global disaster it leads to)
>> >then
>> >> >you reject science. Likewise, morality is no longer fidelity, honesty,
>> >> >personal responsibility. It's now support for the policies of the
left,
>> >> >like gay marriage and adopting the Kyoto protocol.
>> >>
>> >> Spoken like a good little creationist.
>> >>
>> >
>> >Who? Me? I don't buy into "Creation Science". But the lefts
redefinition
>> >of "morality" and "science" is no different than what Creationists do to
>> >force fit science into Genesis. Only it's force fit of science (and
>> >religion) into anti-capitalism.
>>
>> No, you reject facts that don't fit your dogma. That's creationism.
>>
>> >
>> >> >
>> >> >The groups standing behind extreme environmentalists are Socialists and
>> >> >Communists. They are idealogical siblings to protect people from "evil
>> >> >corporations".
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> And the folks standing behind you and your ilk are Fascists and *****.
>> >Want
>> >> to call names? OK.
>> >
>> >Not at all. When you see who shows up to those anti-globalist
>> >(anti-corporate) demonstrations you see Socialist signs and booths all
over
>> >the place. No "name" calling was intended. And if you're looking for
nasty
>> >names to fit conservatives, you're really missing the mark with Fascist
and
>> >****. Those are on the opposite side of the political spectrum, away from
>> >limited government.
>>
>> So are conservatives -- telling people what kind of --- to have, what
genders
>> can marry, what a woman can do with her body, etc.
>
>Since when to conservatives as an aggregate tell people what kind of --- to
>have??? You're posting from an alternate reality again.
>
Sodomy laws?
#5517
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety canbe misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
In article <3FCD3824.12530D76@greg.greg>, Greg <greg@greg.greg> wrote:
>Lloyd Parker wrote:
>
>> In article <MK5zb.46$rE3.8@twister.socal.rr.com>,
>> "David J. Allen" <dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote:
>> >> >> Yeah, that's a requirement for a grant, like your predecessors here
>> >> >> say. You have to say 'and if funded, this project will destroy
>> >> >> capitalism and further the crypto-communist agenda, destroying the
>> >> >> middle class life style of myself and others like me and my family'.
>> >> >> Bravo, you've figured it out. Down with science!!!
>> >> >
>> >> >This is the strategy of the left. When they find them on the wrong
side
>> >of
>> >> >morality, they redefine morality. Now it's science. If you disagree
>> >with
>> >> >the "science" of global warming (and the global disaster it leads to)
>> >then
>> >> >you reject science. Likewise, morality is no longer fidelity, honesty,
>> >> >personal responsibility. It's now support for the policies of the
left,
>> >> >like gay marriage and adopting the Kyoto protocol.
>> >>
>> >> Spoken like a good little creationist.
>> >>
>> >
>> >Who? Me? I don't buy into "Creation Science". But the lefts
redefinition
>> >of "morality" and "science" is no different than what Creationists do to
>> >force fit science into Genesis. Only it's force fit of science (and
>> >religion) into anti-capitalism.
>>
>> No, you reject facts that don't fit your dogma. That's creationism.
>>
>> >
>> >> >
>> >> >The groups standing behind extreme environmentalists are Socialists and
>> >> >Communists. They are idealogical siblings to protect people from "evil
>> >> >corporations".
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> And the folks standing behind you and your ilk are Fascists and *****.
>> >Want
>> >> to call names? OK.
>> >
>> >Not at all. When you see who shows up to those anti-globalist
>> >(anti-corporate) demonstrations you see Socialist signs and booths all
over
>> >the place. No "name" calling was intended. And if you're looking for
nasty
>> >names to fit conservatives, you're really missing the mark with Fascist
and
>> >****. Those are on the opposite side of the political spectrum, away from
>> >limited government.
>>
>> So are conservatives -- telling people what kind of --- to have, what
genders
>> can marry, what a woman can do with her body, etc.
>
>Since when to conservatives as an aggregate tell people what kind of --- to
>have??? You're posting from an alternate reality again.
>
Sodomy laws?
>Lloyd Parker wrote:
>
>> In article <MK5zb.46$rE3.8@twister.socal.rr.com>,
>> "David J. Allen" <dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote:
>> >> >> Yeah, that's a requirement for a grant, like your predecessors here
>> >> >> say. You have to say 'and if funded, this project will destroy
>> >> >> capitalism and further the crypto-communist agenda, destroying the
>> >> >> middle class life style of myself and others like me and my family'.
>> >> >> Bravo, you've figured it out. Down with science!!!
>> >> >
>> >> >This is the strategy of the left. When they find them on the wrong
side
>> >of
>> >> >morality, they redefine morality. Now it's science. If you disagree
>> >with
>> >> >the "science" of global warming (and the global disaster it leads to)
>> >then
>> >> >you reject science. Likewise, morality is no longer fidelity, honesty,
>> >> >personal responsibility. It's now support for the policies of the
left,
>> >> >like gay marriage and adopting the Kyoto protocol.
>> >>
>> >> Spoken like a good little creationist.
>> >>
>> >
>> >Who? Me? I don't buy into "Creation Science". But the lefts
redefinition
>> >of "morality" and "science" is no different than what Creationists do to
>> >force fit science into Genesis. Only it's force fit of science (and
>> >religion) into anti-capitalism.
>>
>> No, you reject facts that don't fit your dogma. That's creationism.
>>
>> >
>> >> >
>> >> >The groups standing behind extreme environmentalists are Socialists and
>> >> >Communists. They are idealogical siblings to protect people from "evil
>> >> >corporations".
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> And the folks standing behind you and your ilk are Fascists and *****.
>> >Want
>> >> to call names? OK.
>> >
>> >Not at all. When you see who shows up to those anti-globalist
>> >(anti-corporate) demonstrations you see Socialist signs and booths all
over
>> >the place. No "name" calling was intended. And if you're looking for
nasty
>> >names to fit conservatives, you're really missing the mark with Fascist
and
>> >****. Those are on the opposite side of the political spectrum, away from
>> >limited government.
>>
>> So are conservatives -- telling people what kind of --- to have, what
genders
>> can marry, what a woman can do with her body, etc.
>
>Since when to conservatives as an aggregate tell people what kind of --- to
>have??? You're posting from an alternate reality again.
>
Sodomy laws?
#5518
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety canbe misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
In article <3FCD3824.12530D76@greg.greg>, Greg <greg@greg.greg> wrote:
>Lloyd Parker wrote:
>
>> In article <MK5zb.46$rE3.8@twister.socal.rr.com>,
>> "David J. Allen" <dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote:
>> >> >> Yeah, that's a requirement for a grant, like your predecessors here
>> >> >> say. You have to say 'and if funded, this project will destroy
>> >> >> capitalism and further the crypto-communist agenda, destroying the
>> >> >> middle class life style of myself and others like me and my family'.
>> >> >> Bravo, you've figured it out. Down with science!!!
>> >> >
>> >> >This is the strategy of the left. When they find them on the wrong
side
>> >of
>> >> >morality, they redefine morality. Now it's science. If you disagree
>> >with
>> >> >the "science" of global warming (and the global disaster it leads to)
>> >then
>> >> >you reject science. Likewise, morality is no longer fidelity, honesty,
>> >> >personal responsibility. It's now support for the policies of the
left,
>> >> >like gay marriage and adopting the Kyoto protocol.
>> >>
>> >> Spoken like a good little creationist.
>> >>
>> >
>> >Who? Me? I don't buy into "Creation Science". But the lefts
redefinition
>> >of "morality" and "science" is no different than what Creationists do to
>> >force fit science into Genesis. Only it's force fit of science (and
>> >religion) into anti-capitalism.
>>
>> No, you reject facts that don't fit your dogma. That's creationism.
>>
>> >
>> >> >
>> >> >The groups standing behind extreme environmentalists are Socialists and
>> >> >Communists. They are idealogical siblings to protect people from "evil
>> >> >corporations".
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> And the folks standing behind you and your ilk are Fascists and *****.
>> >Want
>> >> to call names? OK.
>> >
>> >Not at all. When you see who shows up to those anti-globalist
>> >(anti-corporate) demonstrations you see Socialist signs and booths all
over
>> >the place. No "name" calling was intended. And if you're looking for
nasty
>> >names to fit conservatives, you're really missing the mark with Fascist
and
>> >****. Those are on the opposite side of the political spectrum, away from
>> >limited government.
>>
>> So are conservatives -- telling people what kind of --- to have, what
genders
>> can marry, what a woman can do with her body, etc.
>
>Since when to conservatives as an aggregate tell people what kind of --- to
>have??? You're posting from an alternate reality again.
>
Sodomy laws?
>Lloyd Parker wrote:
>
>> In article <MK5zb.46$rE3.8@twister.socal.rr.com>,
>> "David J. Allen" <dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote:
>> >> >> Yeah, that's a requirement for a grant, like your predecessors here
>> >> >> say. You have to say 'and if funded, this project will destroy
>> >> >> capitalism and further the crypto-communist agenda, destroying the
>> >> >> middle class life style of myself and others like me and my family'.
>> >> >> Bravo, you've figured it out. Down with science!!!
>> >> >
>> >> >This is the strategy of the left. When they find them on the wrong
side
>> >of
>> >> >morality, they redefine morality. Now it's science. If you disagree
>> >with
>> >> >the "science" of global warming (and the global disaster it leads to)
>> >then
>> >> >you reject science. Likewise, morality is no longer fidelity, honesty,
>> >> >personal responsibility. It's now support for the policies of the
left,
>> >> >like gay marriage and adopting the Kyoto protocol.
>> >>
>> >> Spoken like a good little creationist.
>> >>
>> >
>> >Who? Me? I don't buy into "Creation Science". But the lefts
redefinition
>> >of "morality" and "science" is no different than what Creationists do to
>> >force fit science into Genesis. Only it's force fit of science (and
>> >religion) into anti-capitalism.
>>
>> No, you reject facts that don't fit your dogma. That's creationism.
>>
>> >
>> >> >
>> >> >The groups standing behind extreme environmentalists are Socialists and
>> >> >Communists. They are idealogical siblings to protect people from "evil
>> >> >corporations".
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> And the folks standing behind you and your ilk are Fascists and *****.
>> >Want
>> >> to call names? OK.
>> >
>> >Not at all. When you see who shows up to those anti-globalist
>> >(anti-corporate) demonstrations you see Socialist signs and booths all
over
>> >the place. No "name" calling was intended. And if you're looking for
nasty
>> >names to fit conservatives, you're really missing the mark with Fascist
and
>> >****. Those are on the opposite side of the political spectrum, away from
>> >limited government.
>>
>> So are conservatives -- telling people what kind of --- to have, what
genders
>> can marry, what a woman can do with her body, etc.
>
>Since when to conservatives as an aggregate tell people what kind of --- to
>have??? You're posting from an alternate reality again.
>
Sodomy laws?
#5519
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safetycanbe misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
In article <3FCD395E.3D06D971@greg.greg>, Greg <greg@greg.greg> wrote:
>Lloyd Parker wrote:
>
>> In article <3FCCE917.CEB3EFBE@greg.greg>, Greg <greg@greg.greg> wrote:
>> >Lloyd Parker wrote:
>> >
>> >> In article <MfVyb.61262$t01.28458@twister.socal.rr.com>,
>> >> "David J. Allen" <dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >"Brent P" <tetraethyllead@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> >> >news:NHTyb.384552$HS4.3166098@attbi_s01...
>> >> >> In article <3FCBD92E.AA0EBC33@kinez.net>, Bill Putney wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> > I think z would go for the California model for "conservation"
wherein
>> >> >> > you legally ban the building of power generation facilities, then,
>> when
>> >> >> > the demand far outstrips the supply capacity, the price for energy
>> goes
>> >> >> > up so high that everyone turns their a.c. off because they can't
>> afford
>> >> >> > to run them - everybody wins because, once again, everyone is
forced
>> >> >> > down to the same level of misery - equality achieved at last. Oh
one
>> >> >> > catch - the people responsible aren't even allowed to finish out
their
>> >> >> > term due to the anger of the recipients of the benevolence of the
>> >> >> > government.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> You forgot the best aspect. The rich elites can still afford the
>> >> >> higher rates and can keep their AC on without any supply problems.
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >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.
>> >>
>> >> As opposed to here, where if you don't have insurance, or aren't rich,
you
>> >> either go bankrupt or do without any care?
>> >
>> >Again Lloyd, not true, except perhaps in your alternate reality, where
>> (unnamed)
>> >people in this group are Taliban that stone women for learning to read and
>> shoot
>> >as US troops . Hospitals may not turn people away for care by law.
>> >
>> Only in an emergency is a hospital required to treat anybody, and as soon
as
>> they're "stable" they can be turned out. Need dialysis? No hospital is
>> required to do that for free, for example.
>
>Absolutely False! Hospitals in the US do this every single day. Why don't
you
>volunteer at your local hospital. You will certainly learn something.
No hospital is required to do anything but stablize an emergency patient.
Some may choose to do other things, or, as our local hospital does, get a
county subsidy to treat indigent patients.
>
>Lloyd Parker wrote:
>
>> In article <3FCCE917.CEB3EFBE@greg.greg>, Greg <greg@greg.greg> wrote:
>> >Lloyd Parker wrote:
>> >
>> >> In article <MfVyb.61262$t01.28458@twister.socal.rr.com>,
>> >> "David J. Allen" <dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >"Brent P" <tetraethyllead@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> >> >news:NHTyb.384552$HS4.3166098@attbi_s01...
>> >> >> In article <3FCBD92E.AA0EBC33@kinez.net>, Bill Putney wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> > I think z would go for the California model for "conservation"
wherein
>> >> >> > you legally ban the building of power generation facilities, then,
>> when
>> >> >> > the demand far outstrips the supply capacity, the price for energy
>> goes
>> >> >> > up so high that everyone turns their a.c. off because they can't
>> afford
>> >> >> > to run them - everybody wins because, once again, everyone is
forced
>> >> >> > down to the same level of misery - equality achieved at last. Oh
one
>> >> >> > catch - the people responsible aren't even allowed to finish out
their
>> >> >> > term due to the anger of the recipients of the benevolence of the
>> >> >> > government.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> You forgot the best aspect. The rich elites can still afford the
>> >> >> higher rates and can keep their AC on without any supply problems.
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >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.
>> >>
>> >> As opposed to here, where if you don't have insurance, or aren't rich,
you
>> >> either go bankrupt or do without any care?
>> >
>> >Again Lloyd, not true, except perhaps in your alternate reality, where
>> (unnamed)
>> >people in this group are Taliban that stone women for learning to read and
>> shoot
>> >as US troops . Hospitals may not turn people away for care by law.
>> >
>> Only in an emergency is a hospital required to treat anybody, and as soon
as
>> they're "stable" they can be turned out. Need dialysis? No hospital is
>> required to do that for free, for example.
>
>Absolutely False! Hospitals in the US do this every single day. Why don't
you
>volunteer at your local hospital. You will certainly learn something.
No hospital is required to do anything but stablize an emergency patient.
Some may choose to do other things, or, as our local hospital does, get a
county subsidy to treat indigent patients.
>
#5520
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safetycanbe misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
In article <3FCD395E.3D06D971@greg.greg>, Greg <greg@greg.greg> wrote:
>Lloyd Parker wrote:
>
>> In article <3FCCE917.CEB3EFBE@greg.greg>, Greg <greg@greg.greg> wrote:
>> >Lloyd Parker wrote:
>> >
>> >> In article <MfVyb.61262$t01.28458@twister.socal.rr.com>,
>> >> "David J. Allen" <dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >"Brent P" <tetraethyllead@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> >> >news:NHTyb.384552$HS4.3166098@attbi_s01...
>> >> >> In article <3FCBD92E.AA0EBC33@kinez.net>, Bill Putney wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> > I think z would go for the California model for "conservation"
wherein
>> >> >> > you legally ban the building of power generation facilities, then,
>> when
>> >> >> > the demand far outstrips the supply capacity, the price for energy
>> goes
>> >> >> > up so high that everyone turns their a.c. off because they can't
>> afford
>> >> >> > to run them - everybody wins because, once again, everyone is
forced
>> >> >> > down to the same level of misery - equality achieved at last. Oh
one
>> >> >> > catch - the people responsible aren't even allowed to finish out
their
>> >> >> > term due to the anger of the recipients of the benevolence of the
>> >> >> > government.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> You forgot the best aspect. The rich elites can still afford the
>> >> >> higher rates and can keep their AC on without any supply problems.
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >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.
>> >>
>> >> As opposed to here, where if you don't have insurance, or aren't rich,
you
>> >> either go bankrupt or do without any care?
>> >
>> >Again Lloyd, not true, except perhaps in your alternate reality, where
>> (unnamed)
>> >people in this group are Taliban that stone women for learning to read and
>> shoot
>> >as US troops . Hospitals may not turn people away for care by law.
>> >
>> Only in an emergency is a hospital required to treat anybody, and as soon
as
>> they're "stable" they can be turned out. Need dialysis? No hospital is
>> required to do that for free, for example.
>
>Absolutely False! Hospitals in the US do this every single day. Why don't
you
>volunteer at your local hospital. You will certainly learn something.
No hospital is required to do anything but stablize an emergency patient.
Some may choose to do other things, or, as our local hospital does, get a
county subsidy to treat indigent patients.
>
>Lloyd Parker wrote:
>
>> In article <3FCCE917.CEB3EFBE@greg.greg>, Greg <greg@greg.greg> wrote:
>> >Lloyd Parker wrote:
>> >
>> >> In article <MfVyb.61262$t01.28458@twister.socal.rr.com>,
>> >> "David J. Allen" <dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >"Brent P" <tetraethyllead@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> >> >news:NHTyb.384552$HS4.3166098@attbi_s01...
>> >> >> In article <3FCBD92E.AA0EBC33@kinez.net>, Bill Putney wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> > I think z would go for the California model for "conservation"
wherein
>> >> >> > you legally ban the building of power generation facilities, then,
>> when
>> >> >> > the demand far outstrips the supply capacity, the price for energy
>> goes
>> >> >> > up so high that everyone turns their a.c. off because they can't
>> afford
>> >> >> > to run them - everybody wins because, once again, everyone is
forced
>> >> >> > down to the same level of misery - equality achieved at last. Oh
one
>> >> >> > catch - the people responsible aren't even allowed to finish out
their
>> >> >> > term due to the anger of the recipients of the benevolence of the
>> >> >> > government.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> You forgot the best aspect. The rich elites can still afford the
>> >> >> higher rates and can keep their AC on without any supply problems.
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >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.
>> >>
>> >> As opposed to here, where if you don't have insurance, or aren't rich,
you
>> >> either go bankrupt or do without any care?
>> >
>> >Again Lloyd, not true, except perhaps in your alternate reality, where
>> (unnamed)
>> >people in this group are Taliban that stone women for learning to read and
>> shoot
>> >as US troops . Hospitals may not turn people away for care by law.
>> >
>> Only in an emergency is a hospital required to treat anybody, and as soon
as
>> they're "stable" they can be turned out. Need dialysis? No hospital is
>> required to do that for free, for example.
>
>Absolutely False! Hospitals in the US do this every single day. Why don't
you
>volunteer at your local hospital. You will certainly learn something.
No hospital is required to do anything but stablize an emergency patient.
Some may choose to do other things, or, as our local hospital does, get a
county subsidy to treat indigent patients.
>