Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
#6281
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safetycanbe misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
Jenn Wasdyke wrote:
>
> Brandon Sommerville wrote:
>
> > On Wed, 03 Dec 2003 17:06:25 -0700, Bill Funk <bfunk33@pipping.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > >On Wed, 03 Dec 2003 18:21:10 GMT, Brandon Sommerville
> > ><grimrod@mindless.com.gov> wrote:
> > >
> > >>This confuses me greatly. If two men or two women want to be joined
> > >>as a family in a marriage, how does it detract from your marriage?
> > >
> > >It doesn't.
> > >
> > >Marriage, in our culture (Judeo/Christian) has been historically
> > >defined by the religious society, and then codified by the
> > >governments.
> >
> > So change the codification slightly. Instead of specifying that it's
> > a man and woman specify that it's two people. Problem solved, no
> > other laws need to be changed.
>
> Why should it be only two people? If three consenting people wish to be
> married, why discriminate against them?
How about a man and his dog - why shouldn't they be allowed to get
married?
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! =-----
#6282
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safetycanbe misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
Jenn Wasdyke wrote:
>
> Brandon Sommerville wrote:
>
> > On Wed, 03 Dec 2003 17:06:25 -0700, Bill Funk <bfunk33@pipping.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > >On Wed, 03 Dec 2003 18:21:10 GMT, Brandon Sommerville
> > ><grimrod@mindless.com.gov> wrote:
> > >
> > >>This confuses me greatly. If two men or two women want to be joined
> > >>as a family in a marriage, how does it detract from your marriage?
> > >
> > >It doesn't.
> > >
> > >Marriage, in our culture (Judeo/Christian) has been historically
> > >defined by the religious society, and then codified by the
> > >governments.
> >
> > So change the codification slightly. Instead of specifying that it's
> > a man and woman specify that it's two people. Problem solved, no
> > other laws need to be changed.
>
> Why should it be only two people? If three consenting people wish to be
> married, why discriminate against them?
How about a man and his dog - why shouldn't they be allowed to get
married?
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! =-----
#6283
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safetycanbe misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
Jenn Wasdyke wrote:
>
> Brandon Sommerville wrote:
>
> > On Wed, 03 Dec 2003 17:06:25 -0700, Bill Funk <bfunk33@pipping.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > >On Wed, 03 Dec 2003 18:21:10 GMT, Brandon Sommerville
> > ><grimrod@mindless.com.gov> wrote:
> > >
> > >>This confuses me greatly. If two men or two women want to be joined
> > >>as a family in a marriage, how does it detract from your marriage?
> > >
> > >It doesn't.
> > >
> > >Marriage, in our culture (Judeo/Christian) has been historically
> > >defined by the religious society, and then codified by the
> > >governments.
> >
> > So change the codification slightly. Instead of specifying that it's
> > a man and woman specify that it's two people. Problem solved, no
> > other laws need to be changed.
>
> Why should it be only two people? If three consenting people wish to be
> married, why discriminate against them?
How about a man and his dog - why shouldn't they be allowed to get
married?
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! =-----
#6284
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
"David J. Allen" <dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote in message news:<lQuwb.8682$t01.1922@twister.socal.rr.com>...
> The problem with wind is it can't generate enough energy to replace fossil
> fuels, nevermind the birds. It can only supplement fossil fuels.
But 'supplementing' means replacing fossil fuels; just not replacing
100% of fossil fuels. If we 'supplement' fossil fuels with wind power,
hydropower, solar power, cogeneration, etc. wherever such technologies
are appropriate, we will replace a large fraction of our fossil fuel
use.
>
> There currently isn't any "answer" to replacing fossil fuels, except
> nuclear, to generate the kind of energy the world requires. Wind, solar,
> bio-mass, hydro, conservation are all great but aren't sufficient.
>
> If we could just make nuclear "safe-enough" in terms of preventing accidents
> and disposing of the waste, it can produce sufficient energy to power
> growing economies without spewing exhaust into the air.
But nuclear resembles fossil fuels in being centralized in production
and delivery, nonrenewable, dangerous to labor and environment both to
mine, and requiring a lot of effort to keep some very unfortunate
byproducts from finding their way into my body. What works OK for a
top-down heirarchical autocracy with absolute responsibility at each
level, like the US Navy nuclear sub fleet, probably will not fly in
the world of competing for lowest price and biggest corporate
dividends.
What is largely needed is a decentralization of power generation as
much as possible; instead of replacing big oil-fired generators that
produce electricity that gets run across the country to heat up your
water with big solar collectors that produce electricity that gets run
across the country to heat up your water, replace them with solar
collectors on your roof that heat up your water as much as possible,
and supplement that with electricity or fuel burning or whatever where
necessary.
Of course, that is not going to make the power corporations happy,
since they all know that you make more money selling razor blades than
selling razors, and you make more money selling electricity than
selling solar roof panels. And that in trun will make politicians
unhappy, since little solar panel companies are not in the habit of
making big campaign donations the way big energy companies do.
>
>
>
> "Daniel J. Stern" <dastern@engin.umich> wrote in message
> news:Pine.SOL.4.44.0311241303330.17586-100000@alumni.engin.umich.edu...
> > On Mon, 24 Nov 2003, Dori Schmetterling wrote:
> >
> > > I am not suggesting that wind power etc is an answer (the first
> > > opponents of wind farms have made their presence felt, and who can blame
> > > them?)
> >
> > Me. I can blame them. Wind power is presently *the* best, cleanest answer
> > by far. The specious "bird cuisinart" claims are weak at best and serve
> > only to fuel supposition that forced austerity is the goal, rather than
> > the stated goal of reducing pollution and consumption of nonrenewable
> > fuels.
> >
> > DS
> >
> The problem with wind is it can't generate enough energy to replace fossil
> fuels, nevermind the birds. It can only supplement fossil fuels.
But 'supplementing' means replacing fossil fuels; just not replacing
100% of fossil fuels. If we 'supplement' fossil fuels with wind power,
hydropower, solar power, cogeneration, etc. wherever such technologies
are appropriate, we will replace a large fraction of our fossil fuel
use.
>
> There currently isn't any "answer" to replacing fossil fuels, except
> nuclear, to generate the kind of energy the world requires. Wind, solar,
> bio-mass, hydro, conservation are all great but aren't sufficient.
>
> If we could just make nuclear "safe-enough" in terms of preventing accidents
> and disposing of the waste, it can produce sufficient energy to power
> growing economies without spewing exhaust into the air.
But nuclear resembles fossil fuels in being centralized in production
and delivery, nonrenewable, dangerous to labor and environment both to
mine, and requiring a lot of effort to keep some very unfortunate
byproducts from finding their way into my body. What works OK for a
top-down heirarchical autocracy with absolute responsibility at each
level, like the US Navy nuclear sub fleet, probably will not fly in
the world of competing for lowest price and biggest corporate
dividends.
What is largely needed is a decentralization of power generation as
much as possible; instead of replacing big oil-fired generators that
produce electricity that gets run across the country to heat up your
water with big solar collectors that produce electricity that gets run
across the country to heat up your water, replace them with solar
collectors on your roof that heat up your water as much as possible,
and supplement that with electricity or fuel burning or whatever where
necessary.
Of course, that is not going to make the power corporations happy,
since they all know that you make more money selling razor blades than
selling razors, and you make more money selling electricity than
selling solar roof panels. And that in trun will make politicians
unhappy, since little solar panel companies are not in the habit of
making big campaign donations the way big energy companies do.
>
>
>
> "Daniel J. Stern" <dastern@engin.umich> wrote in message
> news:Pine.SOL.4.44.0311241303330.17586-100000@alumni.engin.umich.edu...
> > On Mon, 24 Nov 2003, Dori Schmetterling wrote:
> >
> > > I am not suggesting that wind power etc is an answer (the first
> > > opponents of wind farms have made their presence felt, and who can blame
> > > them?)
> >
> > Me. I can blame them. Wind power is presently *the* best, cleanest answer
> > by far. The specious "bird cuisinart" claims are weak at best and serve
> > only to fuel supposition that forced austerity is the goal, rather than
> > the stated goal of reducing pollution and consumption of nonrenewable
> > fuels.
> >
> > DS
> >
#6285
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
"David J. Allen" <dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote in message news:<lQuwb.8682$t01.1922@twister.socal.rr.com>...
> The problem with wind is it can't generate enough energy to replace fossil
> fuels, nevermind the birds. It can only supplement fossil fuels.
But 'supplementing' means replacing fossil fuels; just not replacing
100% of fossil fuels. If we 'supplement' fossil fuels with wind power,
hydropower, solar power, cogeneration, etc. wherever such technologies
are appropriate, we will replace a large fraction of our fossil fuel
use.
>
> There currently isn't any "answer" to replacing fossil fuels, except
> nuclear, to generate the kind of energy the world requires. Wind, solar,
> bio-mass, hydro, conservation are all great but aren't sufficient.
>
> If we could just make nuclear "safe-enough" in terms of preventing accidents
> and disposing of the waste, it can produce sufficient energy to power
> growing economies without spewing exhaust into the air.
But nuclear resembles fossil fuels in being centralized in production
and delivery, nonrenewable, dangerous to labor and environment both to
mine, and requiring a lot of effort to keep some very unfortunate
byproducts from finding their way into my body. What works OK for a
top-down heirarchical autocracy with absolute responsibility at each
level, like the US Navy nuclear sub fleet, probably will not fly in
the world of competing for lowest price and biggest corporate
dividends.
What is largely needed is a decentralization of power generation as
much as possible; instead of replacing big oil-fired generators that
produce electricity that gets run across the country to heat up your
water with big solar collectors that produce electricity that gets run
across the country to heat up your water, replace them with solar
collectors on your roof that heat up your water as much as possible,
and supplement that with electricity or fuel burning or whatever where
necessary.
Of course, that is not going to make the power corporations happy,
since they all know that you make more money selling razor blades than
selling razors, and you make more money selling electricity than
selling solar roof panels. And that in trun will make politicians
unhappy, since little solar panel companies are not in the habit of
making big campaign donations the way big energy companies do.
>
>
>
> "Daniel J. Stern" <dastern@engin.umich> wrote in message
> news:Pine.SOL.4.44.0311241303330.17586-100000@alumni.engin.umich.edu...
> > On Mon, 24 Nov 2003, Dori Schmetterling wrote:
> >
> > > I am not suggesting that wind power etc is an answer (the first
> > > opponents of wind farms have made their presence felt, and who can blame
> > > them?)
> >
> > Me. I can blame them. Wind power is presently *the* best, cleanest answer
> > by far. The specious "bird cuisinart" claims are weak at best and serve
> > only to fuel supposition that forced austerity is the goal, rather than
> > the stated goal of reducing pollution and consumption of nonrenewable
> > fuels.
> >
> > DS
> >
> The problem with wind is it can't generate enough energy to replace fossil
> fuels, nevermind the birds. It can only supplement fossil fuels.
But 'supplementing' means replacing fossil fuels; just not replacing
100% of fossil fuels. If we 'supplement' fossil fuels with wind power,
hydropower, solar power, cogeneration, etc. wherever such technologies
are appropriate, we will replace a large fraction of our fossil fuel
use.
>
> There currently isn't any "answer" to replacing fossil fuels, except
> nuclear, to generate the kind of energy the world requires. Wind, solar,
> bio-mass, hydro, conservation are all great but aren't sufficient.
>
> If we could just make nuclear "safe-enough" in terms of preventing accidents
> and disposing of the waste, it can produce sufficient energy to power
> growing economies without spewing exhaust into the air.
But nuclear resembles fossil fuels in being centralized in production
and delivery, nonrenewable, dangerous to labor and environment both to
mine, and requiring a lot of effort to keep some very unfortunate
byproducts from finding their way into my body. What works OK for a
top-down heirarchical autocracy with absolute responsibility at each
level, like the US Navy nuclear sub fleet, probably will not fly in
the world of competing for lowest price and biggest corporate
dividends.
What is largely needed is a decentralization of power generation as
much as possible; instead of replacing big oil-fired generators that
produce electricity that gets run across the country to heat up your
water with big solar collectors that produce electricity that gets run
across the country to heat up your water, replace them with solar
collectors on your roof that heat up your water as much as possible,
and supplement that with electricity or fuel burning or whatever where
necessary.
Of course, that is not going to make the power corporations happy,
since they all know that you make more money selling razor blades than
selling razors, and you make more money selling electricity than
selling solar roof panels. And that in trun will make politicians
unhappy, since little solar panel companies are not in the habit of
making big campaign donations the way big energy companies do.
>
>
>
> "Daniel J. Stern" <dastern@engin.umich> wrote in message
> news:Pine.SOL.4.44.0311241303330.17586-100000@alumni.engin.umich.edu...
> > On Mon, 24 Nov 2003, Dori Schmetterling wrote:
> >
> > > I am not suggesting that wind power etc is an answer (the first
> > > opponents of wind farms have made their presence felt, and who can blame
> > > them?)
> >
> > Me. I can blame them. Wind power is presently *the* best, cleanest answer
> > by far. The specious "bird cuisinart" claims are weak at best and serve
> > only to fuel supposition that forced austerity is the goal, rather than
> > the stated goal of reducing pollution and consumption of nonrenewable
> > fuels.
> >
> > DS
> >
#6286
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
"David J. Allen" <dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote in message news:<lQuwb.8682$t01.1922@twister.socal.rr.com>...
> The problem with wind is it can't generate enough energy to replace fossil
> fuels, nevermind the birds. It can only supplement fossil fuels.
But 'supplementing' means replacing fossil fuels; just not replacing
100% of fossil fuels. If we 'supplement' fossil fuels with wind power,
hydropower, solar power, cogeneration, etc. wherever such technologies
are appropriate, we will replace a large fraction of our fossil fuel
use.
>
> There currently isn't any "answer" to replacing fossil fuels, except
> nuclear, to generate the kind of energy the world requires. Wind, solar,
> bio-mass, hydro, conservation are all great but aren't sufficient.
>
> If we could just make nuclear "safe-enough" in terms of preventing accidents
> and disposing of the waste, it can produce sufficient energy to power
> growing economies without spewing exhaust into the air.
But nuclear resembles fossil fuels in being centralized in production
and delivery, nonrenewable, dangerous to labor and environment both to
mine, and requiring a lot of effort to keep some very unfortunate
byproducts from finding their way into my body. What works OK for a
top-down heirarchical autocracy with absolute responsibility at each
level, like the US Navy nuclear sub fleet, probably will not fly in
the world of competing for lowest price and biggest corporate
dividends.
What is largely needed is a decentralization of power generation as
much as possible; instead of replacing big oil-fired generators that
produce electricity that gets run across the country to heat up your
water with big solar collectors that produce electricity that gets run
across the country to heat up your water, replace them with solar
collectors on your roof that heat up your water as much as possible,
and supplement that with electricity or fuel burning or whatever where
necessary.
Of course, that is not going to make the power corporations happy,
since they all know that you make more money selling razor blades than
selling razors, and you make more money selling electricity than
selling solar roof panels. And that in trun will make politicians
unhappy, since little solar panel companies are not in the habit of
making big campaign donations the way big energy companies do.
>
>
>
> "Daniel J. Stern" <dastern@engin.umich> wrote in message
> news:Pine.SOL.4.44.0311241303330.17586-100000@alumni.engin.umich.edu...
> > On Mon, 24 Nov 2003, Dori Schmetterling wrote:
> >
> > > I am not suggesting that wind power etc is an answer (the first
> > > opponents of wind farms have made their presence felt, and who can blame
> > > them?)
> >
> > Me. I can blame them. Wind power is presently *the* best, cleanest answer
> > by far. The specious "bird cuisinart" claims are weak at best and serve
> > only to fuel supposition that forced austerity is the goal, rather than
> > the stated goal of reducing pollution and consumption of nonrenewable
> > fuels.
> >
> > DS
> >
> The problem with wind is it can't generate enough energy to replace fossil
> fuels, nevermind the birds. It can only supplement fossil fuels.
But 'supplementing' means replacing fossil fuels; just not replacing
100% of fossil fuels. If we 'supplement' fossil fuels with wind power,
hydropower, solar power, cogeneration, etc. wherever such technologies
are appropriate, we will replace a large fraction of our fossil fuel
use.
>
> There currently isn't any "answer" to replacing fossil fuels, except
> nuclear, to generate the kind of energy the world requires. Wind, solar,
> bio-mass, hydro, conservation are all great but aren't sufficient.
>
> If we could just make nuclear "safe-enough" in terms of preventing accidents
> and disposing of the waste, it can produce sufficient energy to power
> growing economies without spewing exhaust into the air.
But nuclear resembles fossil fuels in being centralized in production
and delivery, nonrenewable, dangerous to labor and environment both to
mine, and requiring a lot of effort to keep some very unfortunate
byproducts from finding their way into my body. What works OK for a
top-down heirarchical autocracy with absolute responsibility at each
level, like the US Navy nuclear sub fleet, probably will not fly in
the world of competing for lowest price and biggest corporate
dividends.
What is largely needed is a decentralization of power generation as
much as possible; instead of replacing big oil-fired generators that
produce electricity that gets run across the country to heat up your
water with big solar collectors that produce electricity that gets run
across the country to heat up your water, replace them with solar
collectors on your roof that heat up your water as much as possible,
and supplement that with electricity or fuel burning or whatever where
necessary.
Of course, that is not going to make the power corporations happy,
since they all know that you make more money selling razor blades than
selling razors, and you make more money selling electricity than
selling solar roof panels. And that in trun will make politicians
unhappy, since little solar panel companies are not in the habit of
making big campaign donations the way big energy companies do.
>
>
>
> "Daniel J. Stern" <dastern@engin.umich> wrote in message
> news:Pine.SOL.4.44.0311241303330.17586-100000@alumni.engin.umich.edu...
> > On Mon, 24 Nov 2003, Dori Schmetterling wrote:
> >
> > > I am not suggesting that wind power etc is an answer (the first
> > > opponents of wind farms have made their presence felt, and who can blame
> > > them?)
> >
> > Me. I can blame them. Wind power is presently *the* best, cleanest answer
> > by far. The specious "bird cuisinart" claims are weak at best and serve
> > only to fuel supposition that forced austerity is the goal, rather than
> > the stated goal of reducing pollution and consumption of nonrenewable
> > fuels.
> >
> > DS
> >
#6287
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safetycanbe misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
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.
Dialysis patients get low-cost or free dialysis from medical centers (this
procedure need not be done at a hospital) every day.
> 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.
Dialysis patients get low-cost or free dialysis from medical centers (this
procedure need not be done at a hospital) every day.
#6288
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safetycanbe misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
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.
Dialysis patients get low-cost or free dialysis from medical centers (this
procedure need not be done at a hospital) every day.
> 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.
Dialysis patients get low-cost or free dialysis from medical centers (this
procedure need not be done at a hospital) every day.
#6289
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safetycanbe misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
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.
Dialysis patients get low-cost or free dialysis from medical centers (this
procedure need not be done at a hospital) every day.
> 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.
Dialysis patients get low-cost or free dialysis from medical centers (this
procedure need not be done at a hospital) every day.
#6290
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
On Thu, 4 Dec 2003 19:41:18 -0500, "The Ancient One"
<onlytheone@thetopknows.com> wrote:
>I have a friend who went to the Doctor for a routine physical. The Doctor
>did not like whaat he saw on the treadmill test and checked him into the
>hospital, where he had a balloon angioplasty that same afternoon. How long
>would he have waited "on the list" in Canada for the same treatment,
>considering he was outwardly healthy and active. Would he have lived that
>long? How could he have been sure?
That would depend on the doctor, wouldn't it? If the doctor realized
that it was serious there's no reason why the angioplasty wouldn't
have been performed.
>I know if I need medical treatment I can get it, NOW, now later. To me, that
>is important.
Sure, if you can afford it. I can understand why you don't want to
mess with the system when you can afford to benefit from it.
>I really don't care how Canada does it, if you're happy great.
Then why are you running it down?
>I'm just against Lloyd and his cronies trying to change ours, which would
>stifle it, and lower the quaility of care for everyone, including Canadians.
It can't lower the quality of care for everyone, as some have
effectively no care at all.
--
Brandon Sommerville
remove ".gov" to e-mail
Definition of "Lottery":
Millions of stupid people contributing
to make one stupid person look smart.
<onlytheone@thetopknows.com> wrote:
>I have a friend who went to the Doctor for a routine physical. The Doctor
>did not like whaat he saw on the treadmill test and checked him into the
>hospital, where he had a balloon angioplasty that same afternoon. How long
>would he have waited "on the list" in Canada for the same treatment,
>considering he was outwardly healthy and active. Would he have lived that
>long? How could he have been sure?
That would depend on the doctor, wouldn't it? If the doctor realized
that it was serious there's no reason why the angioplasty wouldn't
have been performed.
>I know if I need medical treatment I can get it, NOW, now later. To me, that
>is important.
Sure, if you can afford it. I can understand why you don't want to
mess with the system when you can afford to benefit from it.
>I really don't care how Canada does it, if you're happy great.
Then why are you running it down?
>I'm just against Lloyd and his cronies trying to change ours, which would
>stifle it, and lower the quaility of care for everyone, including Canadians.
It can't lower the quality of care for everyone, as some have
effectively no care at all.
--
Brandon Sommerville
remove ".gov" to e-mail
Definition of "Lottery":
Millions of stupid people contributing
to make one stupid person look smart.