Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers

Well, yeah - the word "marriage" has a meaning. But of course you want
to re-define it. Why not redefine "murder" as meaning "whitewashing a
fence", or "talking" as "combing your hair" - that would make just as
much sense.

When I and others are forced to pay for the consequences, yes. Don't
make me and others pay for the consequences for her behavior, and I'll
quit telling her what she can and can't do that I and others will have
to pay for later.

Bill Putney
(to reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
address with "x")

 

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.

Bill Putney
(to reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
address with "x")

 

I can refer you to the parents of childhood cancer victims that would
disagree with you.

Bill Putney
(to reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
address with "x")

 

Oh? And where would that be stated. As the cliché says: "Chapter and
verse, please."

Bill Putney
(to reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
address with "x")

 

Since when to conservatives as an aggregate tell people what kind of sex to
have??? You're posting from an alternate reality again.

 

Absolutely False! Hospitals in the US do this every single day. Why don't you
volunteer at your local hospital. You will certainly learn something.

 

In your alternate reality, not in the actual US statue. Routine maintenance and
part upgrades are specifically permitted under the new source review. This was
done for good reason, otherwise it would be bad policy that creates perverse
incentives to remain most polluting status quo.

You mean the Clinton EPA filed, the same EPA file that destroyed its records in
its last day, despite specific US District Court orders not to. Yep, the Clinton
EPA was sure proud of its record.

The only sources that appears to have credibility with you is the Sierra Club and
Consumer Reports. Furthermore your slam against WSJ is false and you cannot
substantiate it.

Many non companies (inclding American Depostitary Receipt) are LISTED on the New
York Stock Exchange and trade like any other stock, contrary to your phony claim
that only DCX is listed on NYSE. Global Shares are no less listed on the NYSE
than ADPs.

I notice that you have nothing to say to that. By the way, your computer's clock
is wrong too.

 

Government health care programs already cover dialysis. In fact the price
(LOW) the government pays is a if not the driving factor in care in this
area. The government payment scheme for 3-times-a-week dialysis is
a major obstacle to improving the quality of care, the quality of
people's lives, and their surviviability.

I am really glad you made a point of dialysis parker, because it is one
treatment that is required to keep people with renal failure alive but one
where government price controls dominate what people get with regards
to care. It is a great example of the arrogant way government does things
that has a negative effect on people. Want better care than 3 times a
week? Government says you can't have it, they'll only pay for that. If
you want something better, you better pay for it yourself or hope it can
work within the government 3-times-a-week cost model. You've stuck your
foot in your mouth once again Parker.

 

Fair enough. better than most arguments in this thread.

 

It is not just conservatives who oppose the redefinition of "marriage."
Any reasonable person should oppose this sort of reckless redefinition
of a long established legal / social / religious institution. If same
sex couples want to form a long term commitment to each other, I think
that is fine. If they feel they need a governmental sanction to this
commitment, then pass a law that creates a new class of civil union. But
trying to call this a "marriage" is an insult to millions of American
and serves no useful purpose.

Ed

 

Oh, sure it does, Ed, if recognized as "marriage" they then get huge tax
and benefits advantages, all of which are denied singles.

 

Doctors who accept Medicare patients lose money. Many doctors won't accept
Medicare patients for that reason. Those that do accept them do it because
they feel an obligation. Medicare is also headed for bankruptcy unless
drastic action is taken. Reduced coverage, reduced reimbursement to
doctors, increased Medicare tax withholding.

 

This one again? Ok, I'll repeat myself. Conservatives believe some rights
are reserved to states and individuals to decide how they want to govern
themselves. That includes the rights of states and communities, through
their legislatures, to rule on sexual behaviors, abortion, and marriage.
It's the Dems who want to nationalize these things and force all communities
nationwide to accept their new age definitions of morality and religion.

The conservative position has never been to nationalize any of these issues,
but to allow local jurisdictions to choose for themselves. The only time
conservatives do want to nationalize such issues is when the Libs find a
liberal federal judge to overturn local law based and make it a national
issue, i.e., unlimited federal government.

Why can't you see the conservative vs. liberal debate as one based on role
of federal government instead of merely accusing conservatives of being
"rascist", "homophobe", "sexist", "bigoted". All those labels are debate
enders. The issue of the role of government is a legitimate thing to debate
with honorable arguments on both sides. Yet people like you never engage in
it. You resort to this name calling instead.

 

But if you replace the carb, then the pistons, then the exhaust, you've got
enough of a new engine that you ought to not still have the exemption that old
engines get from emissions standards.

 

Because the Clean Air Act only exempts _maintenance_ not _modifications_.

 

Because all the examples we have of state-run health care say it would.
Economy of scale, negotiation for lower prices, preventative care instead of
waiting until the person becomes sick -- all these and other factors.

 

Like asking why people travel to Mexico for Christmas trees. It simply does
not happen.

Read, for example,
http://www.worldpolicy.org/globalrights/econrights/canada-health.html

or

http://www-2.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs.cmu.edu/user/clamen/misc/politics/HealthCare/Co
nsumerReports-Sep92.html.gz#Does%20Canada%20Have%20The%20Answer?

 

You must be, if you think we believe these lies.

 

It's false. Totally, absolutely false. Read:

http://www-2.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs.cmu.edu/user/clamen/misc/politics/HealthCare/Co
nsumerReports-Sep92.html.gz#Does%20Canada%20Have%20The%20Answer?