Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers

Again, what's wrong with this?

And the right wants to limit who gets these benefits, right?

Why is this not good? Hell, 50 yrs ago the idea of a woman working
outside the home was a bad thing. The idea of a woman executive was
unthinkable, yet here we are today.

What do you consider to be true civil rights?
--
Brandon Sommerville
remove ".gov" to e-mail

Definition of "Lottery":
Millions of stupid people contributing
to make one stupid person look smart.

 

Us too mike, hence, we continue to respond to all of these people.

Dan

 

Yes, I know, giving up food and heat is a great way to speed your
recovery from your quadruple coronary bypass!!

Dan

 

Hey, you're the one that brought up the child raising aspect of
marriage, not me.

Yeah, about half of them if the stats are correct!

What will happen when we give women the right to vote? Or allow them
to work outside the home? Imagine how negatively that will affect
society! Oh, wait, I'm getting my decades mixed up.

The way I see it, all we're allowing is two people who love each other
who happen to be of the same sex to enjoy the same legal status as you
and your wife. That's it.
--
Brandon Sommerville
remove ".gov" to e-mail

Definition of "Lottery":
Millions of stupid people contributing
to make one stupid person look smart.

 

Well, seeing as I'm not a liberal, that's quite a shot. I am,
however, far from wealthy, though I'm working on that.

Not really. It frequently adds to your choices if your choice is "can
I afford to go see the doctor or not".

No, you just have to have money.

In a crisis here I go to my doctor (or the clinic if it's outside his
normal hours) and follow his recommendations, which include immediate
action by a specialist if it is so required.

You can always pay for more care here, if you want a chiropractor or
you want to go to some sort of therapist or something along those
lines. What you *don't* get is the right to skip to the head of the
line because you've got more disposable income if you need or want a
non-critical procedure.
--
Brandon Sommerville
remove ".gov" to e-mail

Definition of "Lottery":
Millions of stupid people contributing
to make one stupid person look smart.

 

Count me in too, I think I hear the horsemen...
--
Brandon Sommerville
remove ".gov" to e-mail

Definition of "Lottery":
Millions of stupid people contributing
to make one stupid person look smart.

 

People and states just do what they do. They don't need a ruling or
permission from the federal government. If someone disagrees they can sue
in federal court. That's what I mean.

For a "scientist", you fail to honor your profession. You *should* know
better. Generic discrimination only comes labeled as "bad" in your strange
world. As far as bigotry goes, it's only in that strange world that
adultery is a civil right.

Well, for gays they can have all the sex they want and it won't be adultery.
Doesn't change the fact that people saw a social benefit to outlawing
adultery with real pro/con sides to such a debate.

If you paid attention you would have noticed that I didn't make a judgment
on anti-sodomy laws in that statement. Just an observation.

Frankly, I don't understand sodomy law history. So I guessed. I suspect
they were based on a couple of notions. Communities were more homogenous in
our history and the application of natural law as opposed to civil law made
sense in those communities. Before applications of the 14th amendment had a
chance to take effect, individual states and communites were free to
discriminate in any number of ways to protect their way of life.

I don't see much of a pro in a pro/con argument on anti-sodomy laws.
Perhaps a states rights argument.

 

Not exactly. In my case (hip rather than knee, but same idea), it was
same day (first MRI) and later in the week (second MRI) and it still
didn't cost me anything extra. There was no urgency in the medical
sense. The more complex MRA did take a month, because it had to be
scheduled with both the radiology department and the MRI center. No
rationing involved.

 

Oh! I thought it was about race, not politics! Shame on me.

 

The question should really be not one of wether canada is better or not,
or who can afford the insurance or not. But what is more affordable, the
insurance or the taxes that would be applied in a _US government_ run
system?

Now the person who can afford decent insurance in the USA is woried that
he won't be able to afford the taxes for the same or lesser coverage from
the government.

If I could trust the US government to make a good health care system I
wouldn't be worried, because there could be vast improvements over the
current system in the USA. But these are the same people that can't even
copy an existing good automotive headlamp regulation. The same people
who gave us the 55mph speed limit. The same government that puts people
like joan claybrook in charge of things. Look at the US government's
track record with the existing medical programs they run. It speaks
for itself.

It shouldn't be wether a government run system can be as good or better
than the status quo in the USA, but wether a *US GOVERNMENT* run system
would be better. My answer is that it very most likely would not be.

So, everyone who thinks the *US GOVERNMENT* would make things better
for people in the USA raise your hand and I think we will be done
with this branch.

 

And if there was no one who needed an MRI I'd get one right away as
well.
--
Brandon Sommerville
remove ".gov" to e-mail

Definition of "Lottery":
Millions of stupid people contributing
to make one stupid person look smart.

 

Anectodal. The principles behind marriage are what they are and variation
*within* those principles are insignificant. Changing the principles behind
marriage are significant and opens a door that will force us to re-evaluate
the meaning of marriage in ever changing contexts.

If our society were normalized for race, racial differences would be
abstracted out of all our institutions. Oh, that it were the case!
Unfortunately, the agenda of liberal black groups like the NAACP and what's
his name Farrakhan is to abnormalize race, not normalize it. Abnormal works
both ways.

Normalizing our institutions based on sexual preference is much different,
at least for marriage. It isn't about making it more inclusive, it's about
redefining it. It changes the nature of marriage.

 

Let's not kid ourselves. Would it were that the collective governments
of the Excited States decided that wholesale health insurance is a good
idea, the physicians, particularly the specialists, would not allow it.

There is no way that they would be able to make the kind of money they
do now under a government-run fee-for-service system.

It is too late for the US of A to go down that road. There is too much
big business involved now. When Canada went there and, I think, the UK
went there, hospitals were run by churches and community groups, you
know, for the good of the people. Doctors worked in exchange for a pig
or a dozen eggs, or at least everyone remembered when that was the case,
a government run and paid for system looked really good to everyone
still does from where I sit), and I and everyone I know can afford to
pay for it if I had to.

Dan

 

Don't duck the question, answer it.

That door was opened long ago, when mixed-race couples were allowed to
marry.

Exactly the same arguments were made -- unsuccessfully, eventually, for
they were utterly without merit then as now -- against allowing mixed-race
couples to marry.

DS

 

But in the US, we've got enough MRIs to service both the critical needs and
the less-critical needs in a timely manner. Or do you want to hobble
around in pain for 8 weeks longer? (or perhaps MUCH longer in my
case, as it took three studies to diagnose the problem -- and then there's the
issue of waiting periods for non-critical surgery in Canada)

 

Well, OK, fine, then. Let the Canadians administer the program...eh?

DS

 

Which wasn't really an issue until the last decade when massive cuts to
the system were carried out. If the funding was restored (yes, I know
it will cost me more money), this wouldn't be such a problem. Oh, there
was also the issue of cutting the enrolment at Medical Schools to reduce
the number of doctors out there. Seems they wanted 80% of the
physicians over 60 years old, uh-oh, now they are all retiring! What do
we do now??

Dan

 

Yeah, they might have to give up their 50-inch plasma TV.

The claim that health insurance is "out of reach" in the US is about as
factual as the idea that in Canada you draw your doctor's name from a hat.

Good. I'm referring mainly to proposed changes toward nationalizing US
healthcare that would remove some of those options. If we can change the
US system to provide some coverage where none exists now, good. But
don't take away or reduce what I have (and budget for, and pay for, and
prioritize for) to do it. I'm not "rich" or "elite," but I do take
responsibility for myself and my family.

 

No problem, implement the social change in the same manner women were
given the right to vote. Pass a law, don't redine the long understood
legal meaning of marriage by having an agreeable judge declare the
meaning of the word has been changed. I liked Lloyd's suggestion (a
first?) - eliminate the word "marriage" from all statues and replace it
with the term "civil union." Leave the word marriage to the churches and
let them define it the way they want.

Ed

 

Still waiting for an answer to this question.

I'm being serious...why aren't you?

....not a claim. It's a reality for a great many people.

HillaryCare did a terrific job of scaring Americans off any changes
whatsoever to the current system. I have little doubt that was, in fact,
one of the primary main goals behind it.

DS