Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers

Look at the newest perscription drug bill, tell me how that's cost
effective. As a flaming liberal, Dr. Parker, you should know all the
reasons it isn't.

And keep right except to pass, 85th percentile speed limits, and proper
yellow signal timing all lead to fewer collisions on the road, but yet
these things don't happen. ECE automotive lighting standards are vastly
superior to USDOT standards, but the US regulators just say 'look away
from the glare'. In europe roads are built for long life, in the USA
they are built by the lowest bidder and redone often. A pyramid scheme
called social security, existing medical care systems that are ripped off
left and right by fraud but can't provide care to those who really need it
because of buracratic red tape for those that follow the rules. Tell me,
why should I expect anything *DIFFERENT* from government in the USA
because it's a national health care for all?

 

Exactly, so any "government-run fee-for-service system" would have to
be created such that it is more profitable for big business in sum
total. Don't forget there are large corporations like Ford and GM
that would gladly offload the costs of their empolyees and retirees
health care onto the taxpayers.

That's why it is my conclusion that any system that would realistically
be put in by the US government would be inferior to what we have now.

 

Brandon has just confirmed it with his reply to the same post, they do
indeed come here for treatment to avoid the wait in Canada. No one believes
a word you say Parker, so stop your lying.

Nope, scientific fact. Your lies don't change that.

They can receive free care here when they need it, even the homeless get
free hospital care when needed. Sure improvements need to be made, but
scapping the system for a new one is not the answer.

Been poor my whole life Lloyd, even now I'm barely scraping by week by week,
and I have more money now than ever before in my life. You drive a Mercedes
I here, I can't afford to, my newest vehicle is a 1991 I bought this summer
for $2500.00, a fortune to me. I still reject your "free" health care
because it reduces the quality and availability of care. As soon as The
Budget becomes the deciding factor in health care everyone loses.

There is nothing in the US Constitution to guarantee me health care, if I
get in a position where I can not get needed health care it is my fault,
because even now free care is available for those who need it.

The only way to cut cost is to cut service and quality Lloyd, even you know
that. There is no Data to support your opinion, any reduction in Life
expectancy is the result of the American lifestyle, working to much,
sleeping to little, eating wrong. It is as high as it is because our heaqlth
care system is the worlds finest, unlike you, who is the worlds worst lier
and fool.

Yes, your statement is. Even the homeless, with zero money in their pockets,
can get treatment when they need it.

 

It is my opinion that very few US doctors are overpaid when the stress
and work hours are considered and when you deduct the money they must
spend on malpractice insurance. Much of the money we Americans spend on
health care disappears into the hands of insurance companies,
administrators, and trial lawyers. The point I think everyone is missing
is that we already have a national health care system. Unfortunately it
is just about the worst combination of private payments, private
insurance, workplace insurance, charity, and government programs that
could be concocted. I suspect that a properly structured national health
system could actually lead to an increase in the average doctor's net
salary. Of course any such system would have to include limits on
liability and controls to prevent abuses by people trying to take
advantage of the system. It doesn't even need to be directly run by the
government. In my opinion, the greatest single group who will oppose a
comprehensive national health system are trial lawyers. They are the
ones that stand to lose the most. And since many legislator come from a
background in law and/or insurance, I think it is highly unlikely we
will see a reasonable system anytime soon.

Ed

 

Nothing in your post worth reading.

 

But here, those big corporations still pay healthcare costs, both
through taxes and extended benefits packages. I work in a small firm
(10 people) and we have an extended health insurance package. We
contribute to that and receive some drug benefits (not part of "free"
health care), semi-private hospital rooms, dental benefits (not part of
"free" health care), etc. Also in that package is long-term disability
coverage.

 

I didn't say they were over paid there. They may be underpaid here,
however.

Dan

 

Thank you, that is the point I have been trying to make from the start. If
the US changed it's system to mimic yours then those people would lose the
option of coming here, and they would suffer for it. If you are diagnosed
early then you have a much better chance of a full recovery with early
treatment, in Canada you may have to wait for treatment, which reduces your
chances of a successful cure, that is why those people choose to come here
at their own expense.
I'm through discussing it though, I don't see it advancing any further and
we are upsetting the youngsters, who are threatening to tell their Mommies
on us. Peace and Happy Holidays man, pleasure discussing this with a
rational person, as opposed to LLoyd, who has never had a rational thought
in his life. ;-)

 

He is a truck driver, the physical is mandated by the government, who
doesn't care if you can afford it. Once he was diagnosed he had no choice
but to have the procedure, or his drivers licence would have been revoked.
Cost was irrelevant, as his future income was at stake if he lost his
licence. But you don't care, you just want to argue. There is most likely a
wall behind you, argue with it, it has a higher IQ than you do, and will
debate as long as you like.

 

Marriage isn't about civil rights. If it were, you couldn't discriminate
amongst those who could lay claim to it on civil rights grounds.

Marriage is what it is for the benefit is provides to society not for any
civil right it satisfies.

No. The right believes in natural rights that are God given. The left
loves to pile on with new rights all the time. We start out with rights of
life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness and the bill of rights and the
libs want to drive it as far as they can with rights to benefits, jobs,
shelter, health care, etc.. All of which would obligate the government to
provide them. The right believes that, generally, individuals should be
responsible for their own welfare and do a better job of it that the
government.

Because it changes the nature of marriage. It changes it into a union whose
purpose is to acquire benefits, most of which are available outside
marriage, and are specific to protecting the dependents of a provider.

BTW, we don't have a completely gender normalized society and it's debatable
that it would be beneficial. One could *never* differentiate based on
gender. Is that necessarily good?

I'm sure the list is long, but it includes speech, assemble, congregate,
vote, property, worship, access to courts, due process, etc., etc.

The people don't have a absolute rights to everything. The government can
regulate many things based on legislation. One of those is who can and
can't marry to the extent that it can stop certain marriages based on a
compelling state interest (polygamy, same-sex, siblings, etc.). There's our
argument. Making marriage a civil right, turns off that filter and we can
no longer (or would have a much harder time) stop any type of marriage from
occuring. Intellectually, opening the door to same-sex but closing it to
other possibilities becomes discriminatory in the same fashion. If it's a
reflection of public values, then it will be what the people will tolerate.
If it's a matter of civil rights, then it doesn't matter what the people
will tolerate and the courts will protect whatever individuals choose.

 

You do realize you are the only one who believes your delusions don't you
Lloyd?

 

Truth be known, I imagine we are all wrong, and the truth is still waiting
to be found.

 

You're starting to bore me Parker, it is so tireing to argue with such a low
IQ as your's. Come back when you grow a brain.

 

As I've stated many times, there are options available, even the homeless
receive treatment when they need it. The ones who have it the hardest are
the middle income, who make to much for free treatment, but decide they need
a new car and a 4500 square foot home more than they need insurance. I can
but a good used truck for $2500.00 and get 6 to ten years of fairly trouble
free use out of it, and you know what? It does everything a new one would do
at a fraction of the cost. Anyone who says they can't afford treatment in
America is wrong.

 

Senator McCain is against the U.S. civil aviation industry in general,
for reasons known only to him. His sorry ass should have been left to
rot in the Hanoi Hilton.

 

These aren't civil rights. They are available outside of marriage.

I don't think the absence of marriage prevents legal arrangements that
accomplish whatever protection is needed.

Didn't think so.

 

I'll leave Mike, but not because of you. I don't want to offend anyone, but
I am getting tired of repeating myself as well. Merry Christmas.

 

I don't watch Fox news Loyd, why do you make up "facts" to support your
lies?

 

For some things it matters. Marriage is one of them. Marriage has a
distinct value to society that would be diminished without it's focus on the
traditional family. Where would we go in the long run if we lost that?
Hard to say, but I believe it would be harmful. It's just my view though.

I'm not for gay adoption and kids from prior marriages don't mean anything
legally in a new marriage of any stripe. Step parents don't have any legal
obligations or rights to step children.

 

They did!