Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
#5551
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safetycanbe misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
In article <3FCE0F53.10617B9D@mindspring.com>,
"C. E. White" <cewhite3@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
>
>Lloyd Parker wrote:
>
>> >Since when to conservatives as an aggregate tell people what kind of ---
to
>> >have??? You're posting from an alternate reality again.
>> >
>> Sodomy laws?
>
>Have any new ones been enacted recently? I thought almost all such laws were
>enacted many years ago and were definitely middle of the road sort of laws at
the
>time.
>
>Ed
>
Which states kept them until just recently, and fought for them in the
courts? Texas, Georgia, conservative states. Which USSC justices wanted to
uphold them? Thomas, Scalia, the conservative justices.
"C. E. White" <cewhite3@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
>
>Lloyd Parker wrote:
>
>> >Since when to conservatives as an aggregate tell people what kind of ---
to
>> >have??? You're posting from an alternate reality again.
>> >
>> Sodomy laws?
>
>Have any new ones been enacted recently? I thought almost all such laws were
>enacted many years ago and were definitely middle of the road sort of laws at
the
>time.
>
>Ed
>
Which states kept them until just recently, and fought for them in the
courts? Texas, Georgia, conservative states. Which USSC justices wanted to
uphold them? Thomas, Scalia, the conservative justices.
#5552
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety canbe misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
"David J. Allen" wrote:
> Doctors who accept Medicare patients lose money. Many doctors won't accept
> Medicare patients for that reason.
I don't think this is true, unless you are constructing "lose money" to mean
they don't make as much as they could by treating other patients. I have two
older parents, and they don't seem to have any trouble finding doctors willing
to treat them. On the other hand all the paperwork generated is a nightmare. The
last time I had to take my Mother to the emergency room I was thoroughly
disgusted by the whole situation. My Mother needed assistance and it was all I
could do to pry a nurse away from paperwork to get her to help. There were
actually three nurses filling out and sorting papers and only one attending to
patients at the time. And the ridiculous charges on the bill were enough to turn
my stomach. I don't know about Doctors, but I am pretty sure the hospitals know
how to work the medicare system to extort as much money as possible from the
government.
Ed
#5553
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety canbe misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
"David J. Allen" wrote:
> Doctors who accept Medicare patients lose money. Many doctors won't accept
> Medicare patients for that reason.
I don't think this is true, unless you are constructing "lose money" to mean
they don't make as much as they could by treating other patients. I have two
older parents, and they don't seem to have any trouble finding doctors willing
to treat them. On the other hand all the paperwork generated is a nightmare. The
last time I had to take my Mother to the emergency room I was thoroughly
disgusted by the whole situation. My Mother needed assistance and it was all I
could do to pry a nurse away from paperwork to get her to help. There were
actually three nurses filling out and sorting papers and only one attending to
patients at the time. And the ridiculous charges on the bill were enough to turn
my stomach. I don't know about Doctors, but I am pretty sure the hospitals know
how to work the medicare system to extort as much money as possible from the
government.
Ed
#5554
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety canbe misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
"David J. Allen" wrote:
> Doctors who accept Medicare patients lose money. Many doctors won't accept
> Medicare patients for that reason.
I don't think this is true, unless you are constructing "lose money" to mean
they don't make as much as they could by treating other patients. I have two
older parents, and they don't seem to have any trouble finding doctors willing
to treat them. On the other hand all the paperwork generated is a nightmare. The
last time I had to take my Mother to the emergency room I was thoroughly
disgusted by the whole situation. My Mother needed assistance and it was all I
could do to pry a nurse away from paperwork to get her to help. There were
actually three nurses filling out and sorting papers and only one attending to
patients at the time. And the ridiculous charges on the bill were enough to turn
my stomach. I don't know about Doctors, but I am pretty sure the hospitals know
how to work the medicare system to extort as much money as possible from the
government.
Ed
#5555
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
On Wed, 03 Dec 2003 01:41:01 GMT, tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P)
wrote:
>In article <bqitam$of5$3@puck.cc.emory.edu>, Lloyd Parker wrote:
>> Need dialysis? No hospital is required to do that for free, for example.
>
>Government health care programs already cover dialysis. In fact the price
>(LOW) the government pays is a if not the driving factor in care in this
>area. The government payment scheme for 3-times-a-week dialysis is
>a major obstacle to improving the quality of care, the quality of
>people's lives, and their surviviability.
>
>I am really glad you made a point of dialysis parker, because it is one
>treatment that is required to keep people with renal failure alive but one
>where government price controls dominate what people get with regards
>to care. It is a great example of the arrogant way government does things
>that has a negative effect on people. Want better care than 3 times a
>week? Government says you can't have it, they'll only pay for that. If
>you want something better, you better pay for it yourself or hope it can
>work within the government 3-times-a-week cost model. You've stuck your
>foot in your mouth once again Parker.
To be fair, Lloyd can get something right once in a while.
The quoted line above ("Need dialysis? No hospital is required to do
that for free, for example.") is right.
In your response, you show that the government pays for it, in many
cases. In such cases, the dialysis is not provided for free by the
hospital.
If a person shows up and asks for dialysis for free, with no method of
payment, the hospital is not required to provide it, unless it's an
emergency. In such an emergency, the hospital is required to do only
thiose procedures that will stabilize the person, and that's it.
--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"
wrote:
>In article <bqitam$of5$3@puck.cc.emory.edu>, Lloyd Parker wrote:
>> Need dialysis? No hospital is required to do that for free, for example.
>
>Government health care programs already cover dialysis. In fact the price
>(LOW) the government pays is a if not the driving factor in care in this
>area. The government payment scheme for 3-times-a-week dialysis is
>a major obstacle to improving the quality of care, the quality of
>people's lives, and their surviviability.
>
>I am really glad you made a point of dialysis parker, because it is one
>treatment that is required to keep people with renal failure alive but one
>where government price controls dominate what people get with regards
>to care. It is a great example of the arrogant way government does things
>that has a negative effect on people. Want better care than 3 times a
>week? Government says you can't have it, they'll only pay for that. If
>you want something better, you better pay for it yourself or hope it can
>work within the government 3-times-a-week cost model. You've stuck your
>foot in your mouth once again Parker.
To be fair, Lloyd can get something right once in a while.
The quoted line above ("Need dialysis? No hospital is required to do
that for free, for example.") is right.
In your response, you show that the government pays for it, in many
cases. In such cases, the dialysis is not provided for free by the
hospital.
If a person shows up and asks for dialysis for free, with no method of
payment, the hospital is not required to provide it, unless it's an
emergency. In such an emergency, the hospital is required to do only
thiose procedures that will stabilize the person, and that's it.
--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"
#5556
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
On Wed, 03 Dec 2003 01:41:01 GMT, tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P)
wrote:
>In article <bqitam$of5$3@puck.cc.emory.edu>, Lloyd Parker wrote:
>> Need dialysis? No hospital is required to do that for free, for example.
>
>Government health care programs already cover dialysis. In fact the price
>(LOW) the government pays is a if not the driving factor in care in this
>area. The government payment scheme for 3-times-a-week dialysis is
>a major obstacle to improving the quality of care, the quality of
>people's lives, and their surviviability.
>
>I am really glad you made a point of dialysis parker, because it is one
>treatment that is required to keep people with renal failure alive but one
>where government price controls dominate what people get with regards
>to care. It is a great example of the arrogant way government does things
>that has a negative effect on people. Want better care than 3 times a
>week? Government says you can't have it, they'll only pay for that. If
>you want something better, you better pay for it yourself or hope it can
>work within the government 3-times-a-week cost model. You've stuck your
>foot in your mouth once again Parker.
To be fair, Lloyd can get something right once in a while.
The quoted line above ("Need dialysis? No hospital is required to do
that for free, for example.") is right.
In your response, you show that the government pays for it, in many
cases. In such cases, the dialysis is not provided for free by the
hospital.
If a person shows up and asks for dialysis for free, with no method of
payment, the hospital is not required to provide it, unless it's an
emergency. In such an emergency, the hospital is required to do only
thiose procedures that will stabilize the person, and that's it.
--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"
wrote:
>In article <bqitam$of5$3@puck.cc.emory.edu>, Lloyd Parker wrote:
>> Need dialysis? No hospital is required to do that for free, for example.
>
>Government health care programs already cover dialysis. In fact the price
>(LOW) the government pays is a if not the driving factor in care in this
>area. The government payment scheme for 3-times-a-week dialysis is
>a major obstacle to improving the quality of care, the quality of
>people's lives, and their surviviability.
>
>I am really glad you made a point of dialysis parker, because it is one
>treatment that is required to keep people with renal failure alive but one
>where government price controls dominate what people get with regards
>to care. It is a great example of the arrogant way government does things
>that has a negative effect on people. Want better care than 3 times a
>week? Government says you can't have it, they'll only pay for that. If
>you want something better, you better pay for it yourself or hope it can
>work within the government 3-times-a-week cost model. You've stuck your
>foot in your mouth once again Parker.
To be fair, Lloyd can get something right once in a while.
The quoted line above ("Need dialysis? No hospital is required to do
that for free, for example.") is right.
In your response, you show that the government pays for it, in many
cases. In such cases, the dialysis is not provided for free by the
hospital.
If a person shows up and asks for dialysis for free, with no method of
payment, the hospital is not required to provide it, unless it's an
emergency. In such an emergency, the hospital is required to do only
thiose procedures that will stabilize the person, and that's it.
--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"
#5557
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
On Wed, 03 Dec 2003 01:41:01 GMT, tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P)
wrote:
>In article <bqitam$of5$3@puck.cc.emory.edu>, Lloyd Parker wrote:
>> Need dialysis? No hospital is required to do that for free, for example.
>
>Government health care programs already cover dialysis. In fact the price
>(LOW) the government pays is a if not the driving factor in care in this
>area. The government payment scheme for 3-times-a-week dialysis is
>a major obstacle to improving the quality of care, the quality of
>people's lives, and their surviviability.
>
>I am really glad you made a point of dialysis parker, because it is one
>treatment that is required to keep people with renal failure alive but one
>where government price controls dominate what people get with regards
>to care. It is a great example of the arrogant way government does things
>that has a negative effect on people. Want better care than 3 times a
>week? Government says you can't have it, they'll only pay for that. If
>you want something better, you better pay for it yourself or hope it can
>work within the government 3-times-a-week cost model. You've stuck your
>foot in your mouth once again Parker.
To be fair, Lloyd can get something right once in a while.
The quoted line above ("Need dialysis? No hospital is required to do
that for free, for example.") is right.
In your response, you show that the government pays for it, in many
cases. In such cases, the dialysis is not provided for free by the
hospital.
If a person shows up and asks for dialysis for free, with no method of
payment, the hospital is not required to provide it, unless it's an
emergency. In such an emergency, the hospital is required to do only
thiose procedures that will stabilize the person, and that's it.
--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"
wrote:
>In article <bqitam$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.
To be fair, Lloyd can get something right once in a while.
The quoted line above ("Need dialysis? No hospital is required to do
that for free, for example.") is right.
In your response, you show that the government pays for it, in many
cases. In such cases, the dialysis is not provided for free by the
hospital.
If a person shows up and asks for dialysis for free, with no method of
payment, the hospital is not required to provide it, unless it's an
emergency. In such an emergency, the hospital is required to do only
thiose procedures that will stabilize the person, and that's it.
--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"
#5558
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
On Tue, 02 Dec 2003 19:02:37 -0500, Bill Putney <bputney@kinez.net>
wrote:
>> what a woman can do with her body, etc.
>
>When I and others are forced to pay for the consequences, yes. Don't
>make me and others pay for the consequences for her behavior, and I'll
>quit telling her what she can and can't do that I and others will have
>to pay for later.
I always found the argument that we can't tell a woman what to do with
her body rather strange.
We most certainly can, and do, just that: it's illegal for a woman to
use illegal drugs on/in her body, for example. That destroys the
argument right there.
--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"
wrote:
>> what a woman can do with her body, etc.
>
>When I and others are forced to pay for the consequences, yes. Don't
>make me and others pay for the consequences for her behavior, and I'll
>quit telling her what she can and can't do that I and others will have
>to pay for later.
I always found the argument that we can't tell a woman what to do with
her body rather strange.
We most certainly can, and do, just that: it's illegal for a woman to
use illegal drugs on/in her body, for example. That destroys the
argument right there.
--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"
#5559
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
On Tue, 02 Dec 2003 19:02:37 -0500, Bill Putney <bputney@kinez.net>
wrote:
>> what a woman can do with her body, etc.
>
>When I and others are forced to pay for the consequences, yes. Don't
>make me and others pay for the consequences for her behavior, and I'll
>quit telling her what she can and can't do that I and others will have
>to pay for later.
I always found the argument that we can't tell a woman what to do with
her body rather strange.
We most certainly can, and do, just that: it's illegal for a woman to
use illegal drugs on/in her body, for example. That destroys the
argument right there.
--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"
wrote:
>> what a woman can do with her body, etc.
>
>When I and others are forced to pay for the consequences, yes. Don't
>make me and others pay for the consequences for her behavior, and I'll
>quit telling her what she can and can't do that I and others will have
>to pay for later.
I always found the argument that we can't tell a woman what to do with
her body rather strange.
We most certainly can, and do, just that: it's illegal for a woman to
use illegal drugs on/in her body, for example. That destroys the
argument right there.
--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"
#5560
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
On Tue, 02 Dec 2003 19:02:37 -0500, Bill Putney <bputney@kinez.net>
wrote:
>> what a woman can do with her body, etc.
>
>When I and others are forced to pay for the consequences, yes. Don't
>make me and others pay for the consequences for her behavior, and I'll
>quit telling her what she can and can't do that I and others will have
>to pay for later.
I always found the argument that we can't tell a woman what to do with
her body rather strange.
We most certainly can, and do, just that: it's illegal for a woman to
use illegal drugs on/in her body, for example. That destroys the
argument right there.
--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"
wrote:
>> what a woman can do with her body, etc.
>
>When I and others are forced to pay for the consequences, yes. Don't
>make me and others pay for the consequences for her behavior, and I'll
>quit telling her what she can and can't do that I and others will have
>to pay for later.
I always found the argument that we can't tell a woman what to do with
her body rather strange.
We most certainly can, and do, just that: it's illegal for a woman to
use illegal drugs on/in her body, for example. That destroys the
argument right there.
--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"