Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
#7201
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
On 8 Dec 2003 10:38:01 -0800, gzuckier@yahoo.com (z) wrote:
>Bill Funk <bfunk33@pipping.com> wrote in message news:<a792tv8mi10hnb81t8m95rec59p2bbl2ef@4ax.com>. ..
>> On 5 Dec 2003 09:59:45 -0800, gzuckier@yahoo.com (z) wrote:
>>
>> >Bill Funk <bfunk33@pipping.com> wrote in message news:<4tgpsv0qjj3fk9mq5t2goiuibmpnu8k64r@4ax.com>. ..
>> >> On Tue, 02 Dec 2003 05:17:32 GMT, "David J. Allen"
>> >> <dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >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.
>> >>
>> >> Well, Hillary's solution would have fixed that; any doctor caught
>> >> giving care outside the approved system would be liable to legal
>> >> prosecution, with penalties including fines, jail time & loss of
>> >> license.
>> >> A true utopia.
>> >
>> >Better now. Only doctors doing 'Partial Birth Abortions', whatever
>> >those may be, get fines, jail time & loss of license. Much better.
>>
>> "whatever those may be..."?
>> You use it as an example, but don't know what it is?
>
>Well golly, I just can't seem to find anything by that name in the CPT
>book. I suggest you try to send a letter to your healthcare insurer
>asking if they reimburse for a 'Partial Birth Abortion' and see what
>kind of answer you get.
And I will suggest that if you use something as an example, you should
know what it is.
http://www.google.com/search?q=parti...utf-8&oe=utf-8
340,000 entries.
It's not rocket science to find this stuff.
--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"
>Bill Funk <bfunk33@pipping.com> wrote in message news:<a792tv8mi10hnb81t8m95rec59p2bbl2ef@4ax.com>. ..
>> On 5 Dec 2003 09:59:45 -0800, gzuckier@yahoo.com (z) wrote:
>>
>> >Bill Funk <bfunk33@pipping.com> wrote in message news:<4tgpsv0qjj3fk9mq5t2goiuibmpnu8k64r@4ax.com>. ..
>> >> On Tue, 02 Dec 2003 05:17:32 GMT, "David J. Allen"
>> >> <dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >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.
>> >>
>> >> Well, Hillary's solution would have fixed that; any doctor caught
>> >> giving care outside the approved system would be liable to legal
>> >> prosecution, with penalties including fines, jail time & loss of
>> >> license.
>> >> A true utopia.
>> >
>> >Better now. Only doctors doing 'Partial Birth Abortions', whatever
>> >those may be, get fines, jail time & loss of license. Much better.
>>
>> "whatever those may be..."?
>> You use it as an example, but don't know what it is?
>
>Well golly, I just can't seem to find anything by that name in the CPT
>book. I suggest you try to send a letter to your healthcare insurer
>asking if they reimburse for a 'Partial Birth Abortion' and see what
>kind of answer you get.
And I will suggest that if you use something as an example, you should
know what it is.
http://www.google.com/search?q=parti...utf-8&oe=utf-8
340,000 entries.
It's not rocket science to find this stuff.
--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"
#7202
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
In article <b5b4685f.0312080947.5a3047db@posting.google.com >,
z <gzuckier@yahoo.com> wrote:
>russotto@grace.speakeasy.net (Matthew Russotto) wrote in message news:<AqudncBx780URk2iRTvUqQ@speakeasy.net>...
>
>No. That's because I have an American health insurance plan. Like
>most, it penalizes doctors who send too many patients for expensive
>things like MRIs so they ration them, to coin a phrase, to the
>patients who obviously really need them.
You have an HMO. There's a reason HMO plans cost a lot less than
other health insurance plans, and that reason is that generally, they
suck.
--
Matthew T. Russotto mrussotto@speakeasy.net
"Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice, and moderation in pursuit
of justice is no virtue." But extreme restriction of liberty in pursuit of
a modicum of security is a very expensive vice.
z <gzuckier@yahoo.com> wrote:
>russotto@grace.speakeasy.net (Matthew Russotto) wrote in message news:<AqudncBx780URk2iRTvUqQ@speakeasy.net>...
>
>No. That's because I have an American health insurance plan. Like
>most, it penalizes doctors who send too many patients for expensive
>things like MRIs so they ration them, to coin a phrase, to the
>patients who obviously really need them.
You have an HMO. There's a reason HMO plans cost a lot less than
other health insurance plans, and that reason is that generally, they
suck.
--
Matthew T. Russotto mrussotto@speakeasy.net
"Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice, and moderation in pursuit
of justice is no virtue." But extreme restriction of liberty in pursuit of
a modicum of security is a very expensive vice.
#7203
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
In article <b5b4685f.0312080947.5a3047db@posting.google.com >,
z <gzuckier@yahoo.com> wrote:
>russotto@grace.speakeasy.net (Matthew Russotto) wrote in message news:<AqudncBx780URk2iRTvUqQ@speakeasy.net>...
>
>No. That's because I have an American health insurance plan. Like
>most, it penalizes doctors who send too many patients for expensive
>things like MRIs so they ration them, to coin a phrase, to the
>patients who obviously really need them.
You have an HMO. There's a reason HMO plans cost a lot less than
other health insurance plans, and that reason is that generally, they
suck.
--
Matthew T. Russotto mrussotto@speakeasy.net
"Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice, and moderation in pursuit
of justice is no virtue." But extreme restriction of liberty in pursuit of
a modicum of security is a very expensive vice.
z <gzuckier@yahoo.com> wrote:
>russotto@grace.speakeasy.net (Matthew Russotto) wrote in message news:<AqudncBx780URk2iRTvUqQ@speakeasy.net>...
>
>No. That's because I have an American health insurance plan. Like
>most, it penalizes doctors who send too many patients for expensive
>things like MRIs so they ration them, to coin a phrase, to the
>patients who obviously really need them.
You have an HMO. There's a reason HMO plans cost a lot less than
other health insurance plans, and that reason is that generally, they
suck.
--
Matthew T. Russotto mrussotto@speakeasy.net
"Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice, and moderation in pursuit
of justice is no virtue." But extreme restriction of liberty in pursuit of
a modicum of security is a very expensive vice.
#7204
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
In article <b5b4685f.0312080947.5a3047db@posting.google.com >,
z <gzuckier@yahoo.com> wrote:
>russotto@grace.speakeasy.net (Matthew Russotto) wrote in message news:<AqudncBx780URk2iRTvUqQ@speakeasy.net>...
>
>No. That's because I have an American health insurance plan. Like
>most, it penalizes doctors who send too many patients for expensive
>things like MRIs so they ration them, to coin a phrase, to the
>patients who obviously really need them.
You have an HMO. There's a reason HMO plans cost a lot less than
other health insurance plans, and that reason is that generally, they
suck.
--
Matthew T. Russotto mrussotto@speakeasy.net
"Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice, and moderation in pursuit
of justice is no virtue." But extreme restriction of liberty in pursuit of
a modicum of security is a very expensive vice.
z <gzuckier@yahoo.com> wrote:
>russotto@grace.speakeasy.net (Matthew Russotto) wrote in message news:<AqudncBx780URk2iRTvUqQ@speakeasy.net>...
>
>No. That's because I have an American health insurance plan. Like
>most, it penalizes doctors who send too many patients for expensive
>things like MRIs so they ration them, to coin a phrase, to the
>patients who obviously really need them.
You have an HMO. There's a reason HMO plans cost a lot less than
other health insurance plans, and that reason is that generally, they
suck.
--
Matthew T. Russotto mrussotto@speakeasy.net
"Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice, and moderation in pursuit
of justice is no virtue." But extreme restriction of liberty in pursuit of
a modicum of security is a very expensive vice.
#7205
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
"Matthew Russotto" <russotto@grace.speakeasy.net> wrote in message
news:P76dneGAQYr62UuiRTvUqA@speakeasy.net...
> In article <b5b4685f.0312080947.5a3047db@posting.google.com >,
> z <gzuckier@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >russotto@grace.speakeasy.net (Matthew Russotto) wrote in message
news:<AqudncBx780URk2iRTvUqQ@speakeasy.net>...
> >
> >No. That's because I have an American health insurance plan. Like
> >most, it penalizes doctors who send too many patients for expensive
> >things like MRIs so they ration them, to coin a phrase, to the
> >patients who obviously really need them.
>
> You have an HMO. There's a reason HMO plans cost a lot less than
> other health insurance plans, and that reason is that generally, they
> suck.
Managed care has it's shortcomings, but one has to remember that the more
you understand how it works the more likely you are to get what you need.
My experience has been that they resist referrals to specialists and
expensive tests. But you can get the referrals you need by pusing back.
It's true they incentivize doctors for minimizing referrals, and if you just
rollover and whine, well.... that's what you get. If you understand how the
system works, which is not easy, and push for what you think you need you
can get it most likely. I don't really care for it, but on the positve
side, it does lower costs.
> --
> Matthew T. Russotto mrussotto@speakeasy.net
> "Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice, and moderation in pursuit
> of justice is no virtue." But extreme restriction of liberty in pursuit
of
> a modicum of security is a very expensive vice.
#7206
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
"Matthew Russotto" <russotto@grace.speakeasy.net> wrote in message
news:P76dneGAQYr62UuiRTvUqA@speakeasy.net...
> In article <b5b4685f.0312080947.5a3047db@posting.google.com >,
> z <gzuckier@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >russotto@grace.speakeasy.net (Matthew Russotto) wrote in message
news:<AqudncBx780URk2iRTvUqQ@speakeasy.net>...
> >
> >No. That's because I have an American health insurance plan. Like
> >most, it penalizes doctors who send too many patients for expensive
> >things like MRIs so they ration them, to coin a phrase, to the
> >patients who obviously really need them.
>
> You have an HMO. There's a reason HMO plans cost a lot less than
> other health insurance plans, and that reason is that generally, they
> suck.
Managed care has it's shortcomings, but one has to remember that the more
you understand how it works the more likely you are to get what you need.
My experience has been that they resist referrals to specialists and
expensive tests. But you can get the referrals you need by pusing back.
It's true they incentivize doctors for minimizing referrals, and if you just
rollover and whine, well.... that's what you get. If you understand how the
system works, which is not easy, and push for what you think you need you
can get it most likely. I don't really care for it, but on the positve
side, it does lower costs.
> --
> Matthew T. Russotto mrussotto@speakeasy.net
> "Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice, and moderation in pursuit
> of justice is no virtue." But extreme restriction of liberty in pursuit
of
> a modicum of security is a very expensive vice.
#7207
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
"Matthew Russotto" <russotto@grace.speakeasy.net> wrote in message
news:P76dneGAQYr62UuiRTvUqA@speakeasy.net...
> In article <b5b4685f.0312080947.5a3047db@posting.google.com >,
> z <gzuckier@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >russotto@grace.speakeasy.net (Matthew Russotto) wrote in message
news:<AqudncBx780URk2iRTvUqQ@speakeasy.net>...
> >
> >No. That's because I have an American health insurance plan. Like
> >most, it penalizes doctors who send too many patients for expensive
> >things like MRIs so they ration them, to coin a phrase, to the
> >patients who obviously really need them.
>
> You have an HMO. There's a reason HMO plans cost a lot less than
> other health insurance plans, and that reason is that generally, they
> suck.
Managed care has it's shortcomings, but one has to remember that the more
you understand how it works the more likely you are to get what you need.
My experience has been that they resist referrals to specialists and
expensive tests. But you can get the referrals you need by pusing back.
It's true they incentivize doctors for minimizing referrals, and if you just
rollover and whine, well.... that's what you get. If you understand how the
system works, which is not easy, and push for what you think you need you
can get it most likely. I don't really care for it, but on the positve
side, it does lower costs.
> --
> Matthew T. Russotto mrussotto@speakeasy.net
> "Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice, and moderation in pursuit
> of justice is no virtue." But extreme restriction of liberty in pursuit
of
> a modicum of security is a very expensive vice.
#7208
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety canbe misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
"Brandon Sommerville" <grimrod@mindless.com.gov> wrote in message
news:d34be5d71eb0768a7e5e01b47be003ae@news.teranew s.com...
> On Tue, 09 Dec 2003 08:24:02 GMT, "David J. Allen"
> <dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote:
>
> >No. Your argument for gay marriage is to point out that so called lack
of
> >an answer to the question of Why Not? or Why are you so threatened? I've
> >pointed out that it requires a redefinition of Marriage because,
> >traditionally, the over-arching purpose of marriage is to provide the
best
> >possible place for children to be reared: the family. It is recognized,
> >aided and protected by the state not just for it's societal benefits, but
> >because of the value people have historically placed on it as a sacred
> >institution. A reflection of the people's values.
>
> And gays marrying will have no more effect on that than seniors
> marrying.
>
I think it will.... eventually.
> >The religious connection is unavoidable. Traditional marraige is a
covenant
> >between God, Man and Woman. A covenant of obedience to God, fidelity to
> >each other, but mostly as God's the way to bring children into the world,
> >love them and teach them faith in God. It really isn't so much about
love
> >or a declaration of love. Religiously, love isn't a pre-requisite for
> >marriage... obedience to God is. Love is a commandment and as we
*pactice*
> >love, we find it and happiness.
> >
> >The decay or rejection of religious faith has effected marriage such that
> >there is a common acceptance of children outside of wedlock, divorce,
> >infidelity, selfishness and so on. It's become without purpose except to
> >gratify self. When that sours, it's off to the next exciting
relationship.
> >Lost is the sense of religious obligation and the happiness that comes
from
> >living it.
>
> I don't know about that. I've never been religious at all, nor are
> any of my friends, yet we all seem to take our marriages very
> seriously. People as a whole are a lot more selfish, but I don't
> believe that it is religion that makes people less selfish. I've
> known too many Sunday Christians for that to be true.
>
I don't think one needs to be "religious" to be good person or have a good
marriage, but the roots of virtue are religious.
> >Redefining marriage as an expression of love between two people or a way
of
> >recognizing the commitment between two people just shoots the middle
right
> >out of it. It becomes an empty shell. The whole issue about protecting
> >marriage isn't about fairness or civil rights or gays or anything but
what
> >it means religiously. Even if one isn't particularly religious. For me,
> >it's the sense that the community I live in is generally reflective of my
> >values and is blessed with the benefits that come from living them.
>
> Does having a gay couple living next door to you lessen the community?
No.. Never said that.
> >Sorry for the Sunday school lession. But it's obvious that marriage
> >revolves around it's religious roots.
>
> If this argument were to hold water it should have been made as soon
> as people started getting married outside of churches.
The decisive element isn't a church. Marriage has religious roots and it
benefits society precisely because of it. Not because participants are
necessarily religious.
> --
> Brandon Sommerville
> remove ".gov" to e-mail
>
> Definition of "Lottery":
> Millions of stupid people contributing
> to make one stupid person look smart.
#7209
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety canbe misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
"Brandon Sommerville" <grimrod@mindless.com.gov> wrote in message
news:d34be5d71eb0768a7e5e01b47be003ae@news.teranew s.com...
> On Tue, 09 Dec 2003 08:24:02 GMT, "David J. Allen"
> <dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote:
>
> >No. Your argument for gay marriage is to point out that so called lack
of
> >an answer to the question of Why Not? or Why are you so threatened? I've
> >pointed out that it requires a redefinition of Marriage because,
> >traditionally, the over-arching purpose of marriage is to provide the
best
> >possible place for children to be reared: the family. It is recognized,
> >aided and protected by the state not just for it's societal benefits, but
> >because of the value people have historically placed on it as a sacred
> >institution. A reflection of the people's values.
>
> And gays marrying will have no more effect on that than seniors
> marrying.
>
I think it will.... eventually.
> >The religious connection is unavoidable. Traditional marraige is a
covenant
> >between God, Man and Woman. A covenant of obedience to God, fidelity to
> >each other, but mostly as God's the way to bring children into the world,
> >love them and teach them faith in God. It really isn't so much about
love
> >or a declaration of love. Religiously, love isn't a pre-requisite for
> >marriage... obedience to God is. Love is a commandment and as we
*pactice*
> >love, we find it and happiness.
> >
> >The decay or rejection of religious faith has effected marriage such that
> >there is a common acceptance of children outside of wedlock, divorce,
> >infidelity, selfishness and so on. It's become without purpose except to
> >gratify self. When that sours, it's off to the next exciting
relationship.
> >Lost is the sense of religious obligation and the happiness that comes
from
> >living it.
>
> I don't know about that. I've never been religious at all, nor are
> any of my friends, yet we all seem to take our marriages very
> seriously. People as a whole are a lot more selfish, but I don't
> believe that it is religion that makes people less selfish. I've
> known too many Sunday Christians for that to be true.
>
I don't think one needs to be "religious" to be good person or have a good
marriage, but the roots of virtue are religious.
> >Redefining marriage as an expression of love between two people or a way
of
> >recognizing the commitment between two people just shoots the middle
right
> >out of it. It becomes an empty shell. The whole issue about protecting
> >marriage isn't about fairness or civil rights or gays or anything but
what
> >it means religiously. Even if one isn't particularly religious. For me,
> >it's the sense that the community I live in is generally reflective of my
> >values and is blessed with the benefits that come from living them.
>
> Does having a gay couple living next door to you lessen the community?
No.. Never said that.
> >Sorry for the Sunday school lession. But it's obvious that marriage
> >revolves around it's religious roots.
>
> If this argument were to hold water it should have been made as soon
> as people started getting married outside of churches.
The decisive element isn't a church. Marriage has religious roots and it
benefits society precisely because of it. Not because participants are
necessarily religious.
> --
> Brandon Sommerville
> remove ".gov" to e-mail
>
> Definition of "Lottery":
> Millions of stupid people contributing
> to make one stupid person look smart.
#7210
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety canbe misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
"Brandon Sommerville" <grimrod@mindless.com.gov> wrote in message
news:d34be5d71eb0768a7e5e01b47be003ae@news.teranew s.com...
> On Tue, 09 Dec 2003 08:24:02 GMT, "David J. Allen"
> <dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote:
>
> >No. Your argument for gay marriage is to point out that so called lack
of
> >an answer to the question of Why Not? or Why are you so threatened? I've
> >pointed out that it requires a redefinition of Marriage because,
> >traditionally, the over-arching purpose of marriage is to provide the
best
> >possible place for children to be reared: the family. It is recognized,
> >aided and protected by the state not just for it's societal benefits, but
> >because of the value people have historically placed on it as a sacred
> >institution. A reflection of the people's values.
>
> And gays marrying will have no more effect on that than seniors
> marrying.
>
I think it will.... eventually.
> >The religious connection is unavoidable. Traditional marraige is a
covenant
> >between God, Man and Woman. A covenant of obedience to God, fidelity to
> >each other, but mostly as God's the way to bring children into the world,
> >love them and teach them faith in God. It really isn't so much about
love
> >or a declaration of love. Religiously, love isn't a pre-requisite for
> >marriage... obedience to God is. Love is a commandment and as we
*pactice*
> >love, we find it and happiness.
> >
> >The decay or rejection of religious faith has effected marriage such that
> >there is a common acceptance of children outside of wedlock, divorce,
> >infidelity, selfishness and so on. It's become without purpose except to
> >gratify self. When that sours, it's off to the next exciting
relationship.
> >Lost is the sense of religious obligation and the happiness that comes
from
> >living it.
>
> I don't know about that. I've never been religious at all, nor are
> any of my friends, yet we all seem to take our marriages very
> seriously. People as a whole are a lot more selfish, but I don't
> believe that it is religion that makes people less selfish. I've
> known too many Sunday Christians for that to be true.
>
I don't think one needs to be "religious" to be good person or have a good
marriage, but the roots of virtue are religious.
> >Redefining marriage as an expression of love between two people or a way
of
> >recognizing the commitment between two people just shoots the middle
right
> >out of it. It becomes an empty shell. The whole issue about protecting
> >marriage isn't about fairness or civil rights or gays or anything but
what
> >it means religiously. Even if one isn't particularly religious. For me,
> >it's the sense that the community I live in is generally reflective of my
> >values and is blessed with the benefits that come from living them.
>
> Does having a gay couple living next door to you lessen the community?
No.. Never said that.
> >Sorry for the Sunday school lession. But it's obvious that marriage
> >revolves around it's religious roots.
>
> If this argument were to hold water it should have been made as soon
> as people started getting married outside of churches.
The decisive element isn't a church. Marriage has religious roots and it
benefits society precisely because of it. Not because participants are
necessarily religious.
> --
> Brandon Sommerville
> remove ".gov" to e-mail
>
> Definition of "Lottery":
> Millions of stupid people contributing
> to make one stupid person look smart.