Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers

Oh great, he wants me to absorb his right-wing propaganda.

Try this:

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?

 

Nobody presented any "facts" there, just Suzuki's propaganda. Perhaps the
problem with you right-wing Taliban is you don't know what a "fact" is.

 

It's called living in a society. Society has the right to compel you to pay
taxes, and it's the height of idiocy to call it stealing or theft. If you
don't want to live in a society, you can leave. Nobody's keeping you here.

 

Sodomy laws. Liberals didn't pass them.

Why does a government decide who can get married though?

Actually, you want to force a woman to have the baby and then refuse to pay
for any expense of raising the child.

 

If you're rich.

 

Heck, you could refer me to Osama bin Laden himself; doesn't make you right.
Look at the numbers.

 

Sodomy laws?

 

No hospital is required to do anything but stablize an emergency patient.
Some may choose to do other things, or, as our local hospital does, get a
county subsidy to treat indigent patients.

 

Most people aren't in such a program.

 

But why should government institutionalize discrimination? OK, no religion
should be required to perform or recognize a marriage not in keeping with its
creed (doesn't the catholic church not recognize marriages by divorced
people?), but why should government discriminate?

 

Lots of doctors won't accept certain HMOs either, because of low payments or
endless delays. Here in GA, a number recently have dropped Aetna, for
example.

 

Why wouldn't the most intimate relationships between people be a right
reserved to the people themselves (9th amendment)? Surely if there are any
"inherent" or "God-given" rights, it would be those that have to do with
intimate relationships and behaviors. Aren't you arguing the 9th amendment is
meaningless, that any rights not enumerated are reserved just to the states?

 

But we know that the warming TODAY is due to CO2. It doesn't matter that
warmings in the past may have had other causes. That's like arguing that
since exercise raised your body temp. yesterday, a virus cannot be the cause
of your fever today.

 

A technical paper that appeared in July, 2003 in GSA Today, a journal of the
Geological Society of America, gave evidence that the periodic cooling and
warming of the planet over the past millions of years is cyclical and is
caused by a complex interplay between solar activity and cosmic rays. It
concluded that carbon dioxide emissions are not the main "driver" of climate
change.

Dr. Nir Shaviv, an astrophysicist from the Racah Institute of Physics of the
Hebrew University of Jerusalem, and Prof. Jan Veiser a geochemist at the
University of Ottawa in Canada, say that temperature variations are due more
to cosmic forces than to the actions of man.

In the article, Shaviv and Veiser tell of their studies illustrating a
correlation between past cosmic ray flux - the high-energy particles
reaching us from stellar explosions - and long-term climate variability, as
recorded by oxygen isotopes trapped in rocks formed by ancient marine
fossils. The level of cosmic ray activity reaching the earth and its
atmosphere was reconstructed using another isotopic record in meteorites.

The study showed that peak periods of cosmic rays reaching the earth over
the past 550 million years coincided with lower global temperatures,
apparently due to the way that the cosmic rays promote low-level cloud
formation, hence blocking out the sun. No correlation was obtained,
however, with the changing amount of atmospheric carbon dioxide.

The conclusion of the two scientists is that celestial processes seem to be
the dominant influence on climate change, and that increased carbon dioxide
release, while certainly not beneficial, is only secondary to those forces
which are beyond our control.

For me I think I'll do what I see Frank say all of the time...


yeah see if you can find out some thing about the trails


Frank. Sling some mud for me!!!!!!!
Braille trail 4 wheelers
we wheel by feel
79 chev 3/4 bb

 

Didn't "separate but equal" get discredited in the 1950s?

 

Which states kept them until just recently, and fought for them in the
courts? Texas, Georgia, conservative states. Which USSC justices wanted to
uphold them? Thomas, Scalia, the conservative justices.

 

I don't think this is true, unless you are constructing "lose money" to mean
they don't make as much as they could by treating other patients. I have two
older parents, and they don't seem to have any trouble finding doctors willing
to treat them. On the other hand all the paperwork generated is a nightmare. The
last time I had to take my Mother to the emergency room I was thoroughly
disgusted by the whole situation. My Mother needed assistance and it was all I
could do to pry a nurse away from paperwork to get her to help. There were
actually three nurses filling out and sorting papers and only one attending to
patients at the time. And the ridiculous charges on the bill were enough to turn
my stomach. I don't know about Doctors, but I am pretty sure the hospitals know
how to work the medicare system to extort as much money as possible from the
government.

Ed

 

To be fair, Lloyd can get something right once in a while.
The quoted line above ("Need dialysis? No hospital is required to do
that for free, for example.") is right.
In your response, you show that the government pays for it, in many
cases. In such cases, the dialysis is not provided for free by the
hospital.
If a person shows up and asks for dialysis for free, with no method of
payment, the hospital is not required to provide it, unless it's an
emergency. In such an emergency, the hospital is required to do only
thiose procedures that will stabilize the person, and that's it.