Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers

It appears that you are restricting your favorable evaluation of the
Canadian system to "normal" kinds of health anomalies (what I referred
to in another post as a "one-size-fits-all" system. My comments were in
the context of serious life-threatening diseases like Ewings
Sarcoma/PNET - which my daughter is a survivor of - and yes I do know
what Im talking about in that context based on what I observed and
participated in in discussions on an internet forum specifically for
parents of children with that disease. I watched kids die specifically
due to the problems with the Canadian health care system and had the
U.S. system cases to compare it to.

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

 

Mr. Stern, the individual in question reported this to me firsthand, and is
a UK citizen with full knowledge of their "system". The Canadians in
question are my friends. I do not appreciate your characterization of my
references as "crapola", sorry you don't agree. Americans are being fed a
pile of shit about the so called "superior" Canadian health care system, or
the socialized meds of Europe. Both systems are institutionalized mediocrity
at best. When their own citizens live in fear of receiving timely TREATMENT
of illness, the system is a crock.

 

Apparently you do not, otherwise you'd quit creating dubious comaprisons
and trying to paint me as anti-gay.

What sort of argument is this? It is almost totally incoherent. Speeding
as most reasonable people understand the word means exceeding the posted
speed limit. Changing the posted speed limit is not redefining the
meaning of the word speeding.

This is also total BS. Obscenity is based on the opinion of the
observer. It always has been. The meaning of the word as not changed,
although what people perceive to be obscene most certainly has. I am
personally opposed to most laws that try to outlaw obscenity precisely
because it is such a slippery word.

More incoherent and unrelated babbling. A DOT legal headlight system
means what it always has a system that DOT says is legal. There is no
long term historical concept that this term embodies.

Your examples were ridiculous, so your conclusions are also ridiculous.

I am disturbed that you feel it is important to redefine the meaning of
a long established institution.

This is not a logical conclusion. In fact it is totally irrational. Why
is it that some people always descend into name calling when they stop
making coherent arguments. I simply don't agree with the idea that
commitments between same sex couples are the same as traditional
marriages. There is no hidden agenda, no dislike for homosexuals, and I
am not even particularly religious.

In my opinion this is exactly the meaning of the word "marriage" in a
legal context. If that is "dogma" then I am guilty.

Other people in this forum constantly grumble about shifting meanings of
legal terms (like militia, or maintenance, or...). In each and every
case I come down on the side of maintaining the meaning of the term as
understood by the body that originally enacted the law. Shifting the
meaning on a whim is, in my opinion, a bad idea.

No, I'd prefer legislatures enacting / revising laws as necessary to
implement the enlightened wishes of the majority of society instead of
having courts adjust the laws by distorting the long established meaning
of a word (or words).

What kind of argument is this? You accuse me of repeating a dogmatic
statement - but aren't you doing the same thing by continually implying
that same sex unions are the same as a traditional man / woman marriage?
It is a fact of life that we all have to make do with the "table scraps
lawmakers 'agree on' throwing" us.

Exactly what are the great benefits of a traditional marriage that are
so important to same sex couples? What can't they achieve by other legal
means that don't require insulting millions of people who deeply believe
that a marriage is a man / woman union? Why are you opposed to granting
the same rights to same sex couple as people in a traditional marriage
without changing a long standing definition to suit your wishes?

It certainly seems that they are fighting the battle to piss off
someone. I can't see any logical reason for trying to redefine the legal
meaning of marriage when there are other ways of achieving the same
benefits.

I am tired of you deciding what I believe. Get it through your head, I
don't like the idea of changing laws my judicial fiat. The same process
used to modify the legal meaning of "marriage" today to suit your
wishes, may be used to your detriment tomorrow.

Ed

 

All the same responsibilities and rights that are granted to married
heterosexual couples.

There, that wasn't so hard, was it? You finally admit that you're opposed
because same-sex unions make you feel bad.

I don't happen to believe that you feeling bad, icky, insulted or whatever
should hold legal sway over equal rights.

DS

 

The only equitable solution is for the government to get out of the
marriage business completely. That ought to piss off everyone equally.

 

Heaven forbid people should read the 9th amendment.

 

If you cite right-web web sites, and medical-insurance-drug industry sites,
then, yes, they're propaganda. Consumer Reports analyzed the health care
situation from a consumer's point of view.

 

How is letting people do what they want in the privacy of their home with
another consenting adult "creating laws"? That's something any conservative
or libertarian should want the government to stay out of.

 

When I used "we", I meant those of us who are in the field of science.

 

Why is telling some people they don't have a right others have NOT
discrimination?

 

Once marriage was defined in this country as a union between a man and woman
of the same race too.

 

Yet they pass less for health care then we do. Sounds like a win-win
situation to me.

What does that mean? There are plenty of innovations. Airbus now is outdoing
Boeing in orders, for example. Why? Innovative ideas.

And the US refusing to buy any military hardware from Airbus isn't a form of
subsidy to Boeing?

Besides, if the gov't pays for health care instead of the employer, that's
reducing the costs to the employer.

Yet you can see autos in Europe that get 40 mpg. Ones that go 200+ mph. You
can see high-speed rail we can only dream of here.

 

Interpretting the US constitution is the business of the feds, and it's the US
constitution that reserves certain unenumerated rights to the people. Who
else but the courts can interpret that and say what those rights are?

None of them has the jurisdiction to interpret the US constitution.

merit.

Sure, so did those against integration. To bigots.

Are you saying you cannot commit adultery except by sodomy? And even if so,
why was sodomy between unmarried people illegal? In fact, most of the sodomy
laws were only enforced for gays (thus unmarried people).

 

Slavery was an instutition that was "long in place" too. Just because a form
of discrimination has lasted a long time isn't any reason to resist changing
it.

 

The rationale behind that is opposite sex partners CAN get married; same sex
partners cannot.

 

Sorry, when I said "we" I meant "we who are in the field of science."

Sorry if the concept of an "analogy" confused you. Bet you bombed the SATs.

 

I see your IQ is still below room temperature.

 

"The cowardly one" just continues to show how stupid he is.

 

But there are no tax benefits to "civil unions", no inheritance benefits, no
insurance benefits, etc.

 

And you get to decide that? Sorry, that would be anarchy. In our society,
our elected government decides that.