Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
#6001
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safetycanbe misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
news:bqnjr6$e8j$25@puck.cc.emory.edu...
> In article <bqmefb0k0h@enews4.newsguy.com>,
> "Jerry McG" <gmcgeorge.REMOVE@frontier.net> wrote:
> >
> >"Daniel J. Stern" <dastern@127.0.0.1> wrote in message
> >news:Pine.SOL.4.44.0312032057380.21202-100000@alumni.engin.umich.edu...
> >> On Wed, 3 Dec 2003, Jerry McG wrote:
> >>
> >> > > I daresay you don't know what you're talking about. I'm an American
> >living
> >> > > here in Canada, and guess what? Canada's healthcare system is
*vastly*
> >> > > better than the US system in the vast majority of cases. Are there
> >> > > exceptions? Surely. There's no such thing as perfection. But the
> >Canadian
> >> > > system does a much better job of handling most of the healthcare
needs
> >of
> >> > > most of the people at a reasonable cost.
> >>
> >> > I had exposure to both the UKs socialized medicine and Canadian
health
> >> > care....run away! A Brit friend was visiting our offices in the
States
> >and
> >> > took a run up to Toronto to see the Company's Canadian operations.
While
> >> > there she got the unmistakable signs of appendicitis. The Canadians
> >basicaly
> >> > forced her onto a plane to get her over the border to the USA,
telling
> >her
> >> > she wanted NOTHING to do with the Canadian health care system. EMS
met
> >her
> >> > at the airport, rushed her to the hospital where she had an emergency
> >> > appendectomy within minutes of arrival. She then convalesced for four
> >days
> >> > "in hospital", as the Brits would say.
> >>
> >> So your perception of Canadian healthcare is based on the experience of
a
> >> friend of yours who was warned off the system by some unknown other
> >> individuals.
> >>
> >> Mine is based on getting very suddenly struck down with a large and
lodged
> >> kidney stone at 4 in the morning while in Toronto. Extremely painful,
but
> >> not life threatening. I was diagnosed, treated, operated upon and
> >> prescribed suitable meds in a fast, efficient, capable, thorough
manner.
> >>
> >> I think my firsthand experience beats your fourth-hand crapola.
> >>
> >> DS
> >
> >Mr. Stern, the individual in question reported this to me firsthand, and
is
> >a UK citizen with full knowledge of their "system". The Canadians in
> >question are my friends. I do not appreciate your characterization of my
> >references as "crapola", sorry you don't agree. Americans are being fed a
> >pile of ---- about the so called "superior" Canadian health care system,
or
> >the socialized meds of Europe. Both systems are institutionalized
mediocrity
> >at best. When their own citizens live in fear of receiving timely
TREATMENT
> >of illness, the system is a crock.
> >
> >
> Obejctive studies find the opposite, and I hardly think a right-wing shill
> like you has much credibility on the issue anyway.
Your lying again Lloyd, and Richard Nixon has more credibility than you.
#6002
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
In article <l8Jzb.3184$WT6.1952@twister.socal.rr.com>, David J. Allen wrote:
> Okay, I can't go toe to toe with you on that, but my point was more about
> being able to respond to demand. One of the reasons Verizon and Sprint
> haven't used Nokia phones is Nokia's foot dragging with respect to CDMA
> phones.
There are alot of reasons why a company could lose a handset deal with
a carrier.
> For Nokia, the world revolves around GSM and they came marching
> into the US thinking they could call the shots... after all, they have such
> a huge worldwide marketshare and so much of the world uses GSM. But in the
> US, there are competing technologies and competing providers and if you want
> to maximize your presence you better be able and willing to respond to
> demand. There is less of that atmosphere in Europe. It's all one standard.
I worked on GSM product. The demands are just as great. And because it
is all one standard the competition is even tougher. There is nobody
locked in to your product, or with few other choices. Constant improvement
was a requirement. Things like dual band, and tri-band GSM phones. GPRS,
etc. Being the first to market with them and selling as many of them
as possible before competitors came out with their models.
In the USA the different systems would allow for a company to get way
ahead in or two of the MAs or even have captive customers like NEXTEL.
> I think it's similar to the European attitude that accepts that government
> can provide healthcare for all. It works at a certain level and people have
> decided they can accept the consequences, good and bad, of that kind of
> system. People here are different. There are competing models for
> healthcare here.
No it's not similar at all. GSM is like the european standards for
headlamps and other technical things. A unification so that one can
go easily from one country to the next. I would be like if someone
who lived in ohio drove on the left while those in IN drove on the right
side of the road if they didn't do this. Such technology concerns are
an outgrowth of being close together.
> For us to hand it over to the government for a single
> monolithic model is analogous to us handing over telecommunications to the
> government and specifying a single standard. Would it work? Sure. Just
> like in Europe.
> But I think you have to accept that CDMA is pushing the
> technology in wireless.
This was because it was decided to use CDMA for 3G. A world-wide decision
on a standard. Yep, the very process you are arguing against.
> I think phone features is another issue. I believe
> that Verizon and Sprint have more power to specify phone features in the
> CDMA marketplace as providers than the phone manufacturers do. It's less
> about GSM or CDMA than it is about resonding to demand pressures. It's
> Verizon and Sprint that are specifying phone features, not Nokia. That was
> my point about the difference between European and US markets.
Features come about in two ways, the manufacturers come up with ideas
and try to sell them or the carrier decides they want X and the
manufacturers try to make it work.
> Okay, I can't go toe to toe with you on that, but my point was more about
> being able to respond to demand. One of the reasons Verizon and Sprint
> haven't used Nokia phones is Nokia's foot dragging with respect to CDMA
> phones.
There are alot of reasons why a company could lose a handset deal with
a carrier.
> For Nokia, the world revolves around GSM and they came marching
> into the US thinking they could call the shots... after all, they have such
> a huge worldwide marketshare and so much of the world uses GSM. But in the
> US, there are competing technologies and competing providers and if you want
> to maximize your presence you better be able and willing to respond to
> demand. There is less of that atmosphere in Europe. It's all one standard.
I worked on GSM product. The demands are just as great. And because it
is all one standard the competition is even tougher. There is nobody
locked in to your product, or with few other choices. Constant improvement
was a requirement. Things like dual band, and tri-band GSM phones. GPRS,
etc. Being the first to market with them and selling as many of them
as possible before competitors came out with their models.
In the USA the different systems would allow for a company to get way
ahead in or two of the MAs or even have captive customers like NEXTEL.
> I think it's similar to the European attitude that accepts that government
> can provide healthcare for all. It works at a certain level and people have
> decided they can accept the consequences, good and bad, of that kind of
> system. People here are different. There are competing models for
> healthcare here.
No it's not similar at all. GSM is like the european standards for
headlamps and other technical things. A unification so that one can
go easily from one country to the next. I would be like if someone
who lived in ohio drove on the left while those in IN drove on the right
side of the road if they didn't do this. Such technology concerns are
an outgrowth of being close together.
> For us to hand it over to the government for a single
> monolithic model is analogous to us handing over telecommunications to the
> government and specifying a single standard. Would it work? Sure. Just
> like in Europe.
> But I think you have to accept that CDMA is pushing the
> technology in wireless.
This was because it was decided to use CDMA for 3G. A world-wide decision
on a standard. Yep, the very process you are arguing against.
> I think phone features is another issue. I believe
> that Verizon and Sprint have more power to specify phone features in the
> CDMA marketplace as providers than the phone manufacturers do. It's less
> about GSM or CDMA than it is about resonding to demand pressures. It's
> Verizon and Sprint that are specifying phone features, not Nokia. That was
> my point about the difference between European and US markets.
Features come about in two ways, the manufacturers come up with ideas
and try to sell them or the carrier decides they want X and the
manufacturers try to make it work.
#6003
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
In article <l8Jzb.3184$WT6.1952@twister.socal.rr.com>, David J. Allen wrote:
> Okay, I can't go toe to toe with you on that, but my point was more about
> being able to respond to demand. One of the reasons Verizon and Sprint
> haven't used Nokia phones is Nokia's foot dragging with respect to CDMA
> phones.
There are alot of reasons why a company could lose a handset deal with
a carrier.
> For Nokia, the world revolves around GSM and they came marching
> into the US thinking they could call the shots... after all, they have such
> a huge worldwide marketshare and so much of the world uses GSM. But in the
> US, there are competing technologies and competing providers and if you want
> to maximize your presence you better be able and willing to respond to
> demand. There is less of that atmosphere in Europe. It's all one standard.
I worked on GSM product. The demands are just as great. And because it
is all one standard the competition is even tougher. There is nobody
locked in to your product, or with few other choices. Constant improvement
was a requirement. Things like dual band, and tri-band GSM phones. GPRS,
etc. Being the first to market with them and selling as many of them
as possible before competitors came out with their models.
In the USA the different systems would allow for a company to get way
ahead in or two of the MAs or even have captive customers like NEXTEL.
> I think it's similar to the European attitude that accepts that government
> can provide healthcare for all. It works at a certain level and people have
> decided they can accept the consequences, good and bad, of that kind of
> system. People here are different. There are competing models for
> healthcare here.
No it's not similar at all. GSM is like the european standards for
headlamps and other technical things. A unification so that one can
go easily from one country to the next. I would be like if someone
who lived in ohio drove on the left while those in IN drove on the right
side of the road if they didn't do this. Such technology concerns are
an outgrowth of being close together.
> For us to hand it over to the government for a single
> monolithic model is analogous to us handing over telecommunications to the
> government and specifying a single standard. Would it work? Sure. Just
> like in Europe.
> But I think you have to accept that CDMA is pushing the
> technology in wireless.
This was because it was decided to use CDMA for 3G. A world-wide decision
on a standard. Yep, the very process you are arguing against.
> I think phone features is another issue. I believe
> that Verizon and Sprint have more power to specify phone features in the
> CDMA marketplace as providers than the phone manufacturers do. It's less
> about GSM or CDMA than it is about resonding to demand pressures. It's
> Verizon and Sprint that are specifying phone features, not Nokia. That was
> my point about the difference between European and US markets.
Features come about in two ways, the manufacturers come up with ideas
and try to sell them or the carrier decides they want X and the
manufacturers try to make it work.
> Okay, I can't go toe to toe with you on that, but my point was more about
> being able to respond to demand. One of the reasons Verizon and Sprint
> haven't used Nokia phones is Nokia's foot dragging with respect to CDMA
> phones.
There are alot of reasons why a company could lose a handset deal with
a carrier.
> For Nokia, the world revolves around GSM and they came marching
> into the US thinking they could call the shots... after all, they have such
> a huge worldwide marketshare and so much of the world uses GSM. But in the
> US, there are competing technologies and competing providers and if you want
> to maximize your presence you better be able and willing to respond to
> demand. There is less of that atmosphere in Europe. It's all one standard.
I worked on GSM product. The demands are just as great. And because it
is all one standard the competition is even tougher. There is nobody
locked in to your product, or with few other choices. Constant improvement
was a requirement. Things like dual band, and tri-band GSM phones. GPRS,
etc. Being the first to market with them and selling as many of them
as possible before competitors came out with their models.
In the USA the different systems would allow for a company to get way
ahead in or two of the MAs or even have captive customers like NEXTEL.
> I think it's similar to the European attitude that accepts that government
> can provide healthcare for all. It works at a certain level and people have
> decided they can accept the consequences, good and bad, of that kind of
> system. People here are different. There are competing models for
> healthcare here.
No it's not similar at all. GSM is like the european standards for
headlamps and other technical things. A unification so that one can
go easily from one country to the next. I would be like if someone
who lived in ohio drove on the left while those in IN drove on the right
side of the road if they didn't do this. Such technology concerns are
an outgrowth of being close together.
> For us to hand it over to the government for a single
> monolithic model is analogous to us handing over telecommunications to the
> government and specifying a single standard. Would it work? Sure. Just
> like in Europe.
> But I think you have to accept that CDMA is pushing the
> technology in wireless.
This was because it was decided to use CDMA for 3G. A world-wide decision
on a standard. Yep, the very process you are arguing against.
> I think phone features is another issue. I believe
> that Verizon and Sprint have more power to specify phone features in the
> CDMA marketplace as providers than the phone manufacturers do. It's less
> about GSM or CDMA than it is about resonding to demand pressures. It's
> Verizon and Sprint that are specifying phone features, not Nokia. That was
> my point about the difference between European and US markets.
Features come about in two ways, the manufacturers come up with ideas
and try to sell them or the carrier decides they want X and the
manufacturers try to make it work.
#6004
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
In article <l8Jzb.3184$WT6.1952@twister.socal.rr.com>, David J. Allen wrote:
> Okay, I can't go toe to toe with you on that, but my point was more about
> being able to respond to demand. One of the reasons Verizon and Sprint
> haven't used Nokia phones is Nokia's foot dragging with respect to CDMA
> phones.
There are alot of reasons why a company could lose a handset deal with
a carrier.
> For Nokia, the world revolves around GSM and they came marching
> into the US thinking they could call the shots... after all, they have such
> a huge worldwide marketshare and so much of the world uses GSM. But in the
> US, there are competing technologies and competing providers and if you want
> to maximize your presence you better be able and willing to respond to
> demand. There is less of that atmosphere in Europe. It's all one standard.
I worked on GSM product. The demands are just as great. And because it
is all one standard the competition is even tougher. There is nobody
locked in to your product, or with few other choices. Constant improvement
was a requirement. Things like dual band, and tri-band GSM phones. GPRS,
etc. Being the first to market with them and selling as many of them
as possible before competitors came out with their models.
In the USA the different systems would allow for a company to get way
ahead in or two of the MAs or even have captive customers like NEXTEL.
> I think it's similar to the European attitude that accepts that government
> can provide healthcare for all. It works at a certain level and people have
> decided they can accept the consequences, good and bad, of that kind of
> system. People here are different. There are competing models for
> healthcare here.
No it's not similar at all. GSM is like the european standards for
headlamps and other technical things. A unification so that one can
go easily from one country to the next. I would be like if someone
who lived in ohio drove on the left while those in IN drove on the right
side of the road if they didn't do this. Such technology concerns are
an outgrowth of being close together.
> For us to hand it over to the government for a single
> monolithic model is analogous to us handing over telecommunications to the
> government and specifying a single standard. Would it work? Sure. Just
> like in Europe.
> But I think you have to accept that CDMA is pushing the
> technology in wireless.
This was because it was decided to use CDMA for 3G. A world-wide decision
on a standard. Yep, the very process you are arguing against.
> I think phone features is another issue. I believe
> that Verizon and Sprint have more power to specify phone features in the
> CDMA marketplace as providers than the phone manufacturers do. It's less
> about GSM or CDMA than it is about resonding to demand pressures. It's
> Verizon and Sprint that are specifying phone features, not Nokia. That was
> my point about the difference between European and US markets.
Features come about in two ways, the manufacturers come up with ideas
and try to sell them or the carrier decides they want X and the
manufacturers try to make it work.
> Okay, I can't go toe to toe with you on that, but my point was more about
> being able to respond to demand. One of the reasons Verizon and Sprint
> haven't used Nokia phones is Nokia's foot dragging with respect to CDMA
> phones.
There are alot of reasons why a company could lose a handset deal with
a carrier.
> For Nokia, the world revolves around GSM and they came marching
> into the US thinking they could call the shots... after all, they have such
> a huge worldwide marketshare and so much of the world uses GSM. But in the
> US, there are competing technologies and competing providers and if you want
> to maximize your presence you better be able and willing to respond to
> demand. There is less of that atmosphere in Europe. It's all one standard.
I worked on GSM product. The demands are just as great. And because it
is all one standard the competition is even tougher. There is nobody
locked in to your product, or with few other choices. Constant improvement
was a requirement. Things like dual band, and tri-band GSM phones. GPRS,
etc. Being the first to market with them and selling as many of them
as possible before competitors came out with their models.
In the USA the different systems would allow for a company to get way
ahead in or two of the MAs or even have captive customers like NEXTEL.
> I think it's similar to the European attitude that accepts that government
> can provide healthcare for all. It works at a certain level and people have
> decided they can accept the consequences, good and bad, of that kind of
> system. People here are different. There are competing models for
> healthcare here.
No it's not similar at all. GSM is like the european standards for
headlamps and other technical things. A unification so that one can
go easily from one country to the next. I would be like if someone
who lived in ohio drove on the left while those in IN drove on the right
side of the road if they didn't do this. Such technology concerns are
an outgrowth of being close together.
> For us to hand it over to the government for a single
> monolithic model is analogous to us handing over telecommunications to the
> government and specifying a single standard. Would it work? Sure. Just
> like in Europe.
> But I think you have to accept that CDMA is pushing the
> technology in wireless.
This was because it was decided to use CDMA for 3G. A world-wide decision
on a standard. Yep, the very process you are arguing against.
> I think phone features is another issue. I believe
> that Verizon and Sprint have more power to specify phone features in the
> CDMA marketplace as providers than the phone manufacturers do. It's less
> about GSM or CDMA than it is about resonding to demand pressures. It's
> Verizon and Sprint that are specifying phone features, not Nokia. That was
> my point about the difference between European and US markets.
Features come about in two ways, the manufacturers come up with ideas
and try to sell them or the carrier decides they want X and the
manufacturers try to make it work.
#6005
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safetycanbemisinterpreted by SUV drivers)
Lloyd Parker wrote:
>
> >It is commendable that you have appointed yourself the voice of science. I
> >wonder if all scientist would agree with the appointment?
>
> Do you have any idea how many scientists agree with me on GW? About the same
> percentage that'd you'd find agreeing that evolution is real, for example.
I don't know. Is there a poll available? And when you say they agree with you -
do you mean completely agree with you, or agree with certain points. For
instance, they may agree that the concept of global warming due to CO2 is valid
but they may disagree on the magnitude, effects, or the suggested remedies. I
think you overstate the level of agreement in an attempt to give more weight to
your particular beliefs. But that is just my personal opinion (not backed by any
other group).
Ed
#6006
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safetycanbemisinterpreted by SUV drivers)
Lloyd Parker wrote:
>
> >It is commendable that you have appointed yourself the voice of science. I
> >wonder if all scientist would agree with the appointment?
>
> Do you have any idea how many scientists agree with me on GW? About the same
> percentage that'd you'd find agreeing that evolution is real, for example.
I don't know. Is there a poll available? And when you say they agree with you -
do you mean completely agree with you, or agree with certain points. For
instance, they may agree that the concept of global warming due to CO2 is valid
but they may disagree on the magnitude, effects, or the suggested remedies. I
think you overstate the level of agreement in an attempt to give more weight to
your particular beliefs. But that is just my personal opinion (not backed by any
other group).
Ed
#6007
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safetycanbemisinterpreted by SUV drivers)
Lloyd Parker wrote:
>
> >It is commendable that you have appointed yourself the voice of science. I
> >wonder if all scientist would agree with the appointment?
>
> Do you have any idea how many scientists agree with me on GW? About the same
> percentage that'd you'd find agreeing that evolution is real, for example.
I don't know. Is there a poll available? And when you say they agree with you -
do you mean completely agree with you, or agree with certain points. For
instance, they may agree that the concept of global warming due to CO2 is valid
but they may disagree on the magnitude, effects, or the suggested remedies. I
think you overstate the level of agreement in an attempt to give more weight to
your particular beliefs. But that is just my personal opinion (not backed by any
other group).
Ed
#6008
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safetycanbe misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
news:bqnjjv$e8j$22@puck.cc.emory.edu...
> In article <3FCE7CC4.EC8B0498@kinez.net>,
> Bill Putney <bputney@kinez.net> wrote:
> >
> >
> >Lloyd Parker wrote:
> >>
> >> 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.
> >
> >Uh - excuse me, but my daughter's medical bills in one year were more
> >than I gross in ten years. You still skirted the issue, which was that
> >Canada's healthcare system sucks.
>
> You've still provided no objective source for that, whereas I have.
You've never provided an objective source for anything in your life Lloyd.
Personally I read every article I can find on a subject that interest me,
and use all the information, From BOTH sides, to come to an informed
conclusion. You simply parrot what you read on left wing sites and call it
science. Your a lier, a fool, and an idiot. I only reply to you because it
is so much fun to remind you of your place at the bottom.
>
> Canada's a democracy; if their health care system is so bad, why haven't
the
> people gotten rid of it?
Because they can run to the emergency room every time they get a papercut or
nosebleed. May be popular, but the actual costs are far higher than care in
America is, where people handle minor issues themselves.
England's is even more socialized, but even the
> conservative Thatcher realized it was so popular she didn't dare touch it.
Bungee jumping is popular, doesn't mean I want the Government to require
everyone to do it.
>
> >
> >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! =-----
#6009
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safetycanbe misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
news:bqnjjv$e8j$22@puck.cc.emory.edu...
> In article <3FCE7CC4.EC8B0498@kinez.net>,
> Bill Putney <bputney@kinez.net> wrote:
> >
> >
> >Lloyd Parker wrote:
> >>
> >> 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.
> >
> >Uh - excuse me, but my daughter's medical bills in one year were more
> >than I gross in ten years. You still skirted the issue, which was that
> >Canada's healthcare system sucks.
>
> You've still provided no objective source for that, whereas I have.
You've never provided an objective source for anything in your life Lloyd.
Personally I read every article I can find on a subject that interest me,
and use all the information, From BOTH sides, to come to an informed
conclusion. You simply parrot what you read on left wing sites and call it
science. Your a lier, a fool, and an idiot. I only reply to you because it
is so much fun to remind you of your place at the bottom.
>
> Canada's a democracy; if their health care system is so bad, why haven't
the
> people gotten rid of it?
Because they can run to the emergency room every time they get a papercut or
nosebleed. May be popular, but the actual costs are far higher than care in
America is, where people handle minor issues themselves.
England's is even more socialized, but even the
> conservative Thatcher realized it was so popular she didn't dare touch it.
Bungee jumping is popular, doesn't mean I want the Government to require
everyone to do it.
>
> >
> >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! =-----
#6010
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safetycanbe misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
news:bqnjjv$e8j$22@puck.cc.emory.edu...
> In article <3FCE7CC4.EC8B0498@kinez.net>,
> Bill Putney <bputney@kinez.net> wrote:
> >
> >
> >Lloyd Parker wrote:
> >>
> >> 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.
> >
> >Uh - excuse me, but my daughter's medical bills in one year were more
> >than I gross in ten years. You still skirted the issue, which was that
> >Canada's healthcare system sucks.
>
> You've still provided no objective source for that, whereas I have.
You've never provided an objective source for anything in your life Lloyd.
Personally I read every article I can find on a subject that interest me,
and use all the information, From BOTH sides, to come to an informed
conclusion. You simply parrot what you read on left wing sites and call it
science. Your a lier, a fool, and an idiot. I only reply to you because it
is so much fun to remind you of your place at the bottom.
>
> Canada's a democracy; if their health care system is so bad, why haven't
the
> people gotten rid of it?
Because they can run to the emergency room every time they get a papercut or
nosebleed. May be popular, but the actual costs are far higher than care in
America is, where people handle minor issues themselves.
England's is even more socialized, but even the
> conservative Thatcher realized it was so popular she didn't dare touch it.
Bungee jumping is popular, doesn't mean I want the Government to require
everyone to do it.
>
> >
> >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! =-----