OT has to happen all the time. I guess

JT wrote:


A great deal of what I'm reading about Canadian health care leads me to
believe people are put on long waiting lists for serious surgeries and many
time die waiting. I find it hard to believe your annual maximum out of
pocket medical insurance deductible would force you to sell your home? We
don't have a great plan by any means and my maximum out of pocket is
$2250.00 on the value plan. If I were on the core plan it would be $900.00
out of pocket.

JT



Most of what you read is garbage. I live in the Canada, wouldn't trade
our health care system for the US one ever. Urgent care is immediately
provided (happened to me), cosmetic or elective surgery has waiting lists.

The following: http://thirdworldtraveler.com/Health/O_Canada_KP.html

Tim Lysyk

Tim J. wrote:
rw typed:

Tim J. wrote:


If we have a law for one, we *must* have a law for all!

No, we don't.


But . . .
"There's also the question of culpability. A cell-phone talking driver
(or, for that matter, a drunk driver) is a risk to others; as, for
example, a helmetless motorcycle rider or non-seat-belt-wearing driver
isn't.

I'm against (mildly) laws that mandate personal safety, like helmet and
seat-belt laws, but I'm in favor of laws that mandate public safety."

All of the actions I mentioned can cause the same harm to others as cell
phone usage. Where are you *really* drawing the line?

Some laws are unambiguous and enforceable, and some aren't. That's where
I draw the line.

--
Cut "to the chase" for my email address.

On Thu, 20 Dec 2007 12:42:58 -0700, rw
wrote:

I'm against (mildly) laws that mandate personal safety, like helmet and
seat-belt laws, but I'm in favor of laws that mandate public safety.

If you are in favor of laws that mandate the public safety, then you
have to be for seatbelt laws. I not only use a seatbelt to save my
life, but also to prevent an accident. In an emergency move, it is
*very* important that the driver stay *behind* the wheel, not sliding
left or right. It used to be demonstrated with students at the school
I used to teach. In most situations, they lost control of the car
without a seatbelt.

The same school convinced lawmakers from the State of Vermont to
mandate seat belts when they were given the chance to witness what
happens when they are not buckled up.

Dave

On Thu, 20 Dec 2007 13:10:23 -0700, rw
wrote:

I don't want to see a bunch of laws telling us what we can't
do, or must do, for our own good.

If you or anyone drives without a seatbelt, they are puting every
other driver on the road at risk. I could shiv a git whether the
driver next to be ends up on his hood; I just don't want him to take
me with him.

Dave LaCourse wrote:
On Thu, 20 Dec 2007 12:42:58 -0700, rw
wrote:


I'm against (mildly) laws that mandate personal safety, like helmet and
seat-belt laws, but I'm in favor of laws that mandate public safety.


If you are in favor of laws that mandate the public safety, then you
have to be for seatbelt laws.

I wear a seatbelt. I don't give a **** whether you do or not.

--
Cut "to the chase" for my email address.

On Thu, 20 Dec 2007 18:39:51 -0700, rw
wrote:

I wear a seatbelt. I don't give a **** whether you do or not.

What a **** you are. I am glad *you* wear a seatbelt because of
those around you. People who do not wear seatbelts endanger other
drivers and themselves.

Does the seatbelt muss up your skirt? Probably does, but even so,
continue to wear it *for my sake*.

d;o)

On Dec 19, 4:22*pm, "Larry L" wrote:

Being a bit "cell phone conscious" lately I really noticed the number of
people with the damn things stuck to their ears as they whipped through
lanes of traffic, eager to save, maybe, a second or two.


One time I was out fly fishing and--I swear I'm not making this up--
took a call from RDean. Fortunately, I was able to continue casting
with my right hand while my left hand held the cell phone up to my ear
or someone might have been seriously injured. I did have to put RDean
momentarily on hold a couple of times while I released fish back to
the water but he probably didn't notice.

--Steve

On Thu, 20 Dec 2007 17:33:57 -0700, rw
wrote:

Tim J. wrote:
rw typed:

Tim J. wrote:


If we have a law for one, we *must* have a law for all!

No, we don't.


But . . .
"There's also the question of culpability. A cell-phone talking driver
(or, for that matter, a drunk driver) is a risk to others; as, for
example, a helmetless motorcycle rider or non-seat-belt-wearing driver
isn't.

I'm against (mildly) laws that mandate personal safety, like helmet and
seat-belt laws, but I'm in favor of laws that mandate public safety."

All of the actions I mentioned can cause the same harm to others as cell
phone usage. Where are you *really* drawing the line?

Some laws are unambiguous and enforceable, and some aren't. That's where
I draw the line.

OK. A law that makes it a capital offense for anyone named "Steve" (or
any variation thereof) to operate or ride in a motorized vehicle of any
kind is both unambiguous and enforceable (and almost certainly
Constitutional in the US), as would be a law prohibiting _any_ civilian
to do so. In fact, I'd offer that it would be more difficult to draft
an _un_Constitutional law strictly relating to the operating of a
motorized vehicle than to draft one that would be Constitutional. Where
laws relating to motor vehicles get iffy is in the difference between
malum in se (a legally-responsible person purposefully, intentionally,
with forethought running someone over with the intent to cause bodily
injury to them) versus laws intended to safeguard the public welfare
(you can't drive while "impaired," even though not all "impaired"
drivers cause a "problem" to the "public welfare") versus those purely
or mainly malum prohibitum (not being allowed to carry a handgun in the
glovebox unless "traveling").

HTH,
R

On Thu, 20 Dec 2007 21:20:22 -0800 (PST), Zimbo
wrote:

On Dec 19, 4:22*pm, "Larry L" wrote:

Being a bit "cell phone conscious" lately I really noticed the number of
people with the damn things stuck to their ears as they whipped through
lanes of traffic, eager to save, maybe, a second or two.


One time I was out fly fishing and--I swear I'm not making this up--
took a call from RDean. Fortunately, I was able to continue casting
with my right hand while my left hand held the cell phone up to my ear
or someone might have been seriously injured. I did have to put RDean
momentarily on hold a couple of times while I released fish back to
the water but he probably didn't notice.

I did notice, and if you recall, I offered to call you at a
more-convenient time, but you continued the call. And if you further
recall, I called you without knowledge of where you were. I'd offer
that if your story has any meaning, it is the fact that you had your
cell phone on astream and were taking calls there says something about
you and nothing whatsoever about anyone who happened to call your cell
phone - at your invitation - without any knowledge that you were
astream.

RDean

--Steve

On Thu, 20 Dec 2007 19:01:44 GMT, Frank Church
wrote:

"Tim J." wrote in
:

Frank, you liberal weenie (who loves ya?). ;-)

Bite me Timmy!! Liberal, HA! Them's fightin' words.
Come to think of it, bite me again!

Frank Sr.


Frothing at the mouth in Fremont

You, Howard Dean, Paul Begala, and James Carville....

TC,
R