 | | Re: Trying to understand
|
|
(...) One reason the gov't is so rabid about seatbelts is because a lot of the medical treatment provided to accident victims (often greatly in excess of existing insurance coverage) comes from public funds. Likewise, the argument goes, since a (...) (25 years ago, 16-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Trying to understand
|
|
(...) That really is the point. The government has no business subsidizing medical treatment. Everything the government gets involved in goes thru the roof price-wise. That's the same problem with insurance, if the consumer doesn't have to pay the (...) (25 years ago, 16-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Trying to understand
|
|
(...) seen (...) tell (...) So those without the means to pay the bills suffer? Not very humanitarian. (...) -Duane (25 years ago, 16-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Trying to understand
|
|
(...) That's still not the business of the federal gov't. They are there to provide a framework which protects our liberties - not to dole out compassion. That argument doesn't hold water anyway, anyone can go to the emergency room regardless of (...) (25 years ago, 16-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Trying to understand
|
|
(...) a (...) I agree, but to nitpick, that service isn't done out of the goodness of the hospital's collective heart; it's subsidized. Dave! (25 years ago, 16-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Trying to understand
|
|
(...) Right, but I just meant that people will be treated when needed. Besides, federal medical care makes HMO's look divine. Bill (25 years ago, 16-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Trying to understand
|
|
(...) So who picks up the tab? Would I as an uninsured person who walked into an emergency room, get the treatment that I needed if it weren't subsidized? I doubt it. I would get the amount of care where the hospital knew it would be able to recoup (...) (25 years ago, 16-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Trying to understand
|
|
(...) But this is not a socialist country. It's not right for the gov't to take my money and force me to make charitable contributions as it sees fit. This is mandatory benevolence and as such ceases to be so. Beides, the gov't is so inefficient (...) (25 years ago, 16-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Trying to understand
|
|
Well plowed ground alert. (...) You do. Or you should. It's not my problem if you didn't manage your affairs correctly. Maybe I'll decide to help, but it should be my decision. Medical care is a good, that is, a form of property. There are no rights (...) (25 years ago, 16-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Trying to understand
|
|
(...) I guess I was out smelling the roses when the ground was plowed. :-) (...) Ouch! With that one sentence you hit a nerve. You have a point that I'll have to ponder some more. If I can come to a conclusion anytime soon, I'll get back to you. (...) (25 years ago, 16-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Trying to understand
|
|
(...) It's interesting that the biggest union in the country is the Union of Federal Workers. It gives a good hint of why government never gets smaller. Scott S. ___...___ Scott E. Sanburn-> ssanburn@cleanweb.net Systems Administrator-Affiliated (...) (25 years ago, 16-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Trying to understand
|
|
(...) I think you need to recheck things a bit. The US has a number of Socialist features. 'Socialist' isn't a black-and-white, yes-or-no thing. Steve (25 years ago, 17-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Trying to understand Socialism
|
|
Steve, (...) Well, maybe what Bill is saying that this county wasn't started out socialistic, but it seems to be getting there. Socialism is a black and white definition, however. Any Political Science / Government class will tell you. Scott S. (...) (25 years ago, 17-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Trying to understand
|
|
(...) A country can have socialist features and still not be Socialist. It's sort of like "Space" vs. "space"...capital-S has a very specific meaning, while small-s is more malleable. Semantics...with a small s. ;) <dredge...dredge...> best LFB (25 years ago, 17-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Trying to understand
|
|
(...) Michigan has switched from secondary to primary, you can be stopped for just a seat belt infraction instead of the collateral damage (Has to be a second ticket) that CO uses. (...) Right... and that's one reason I support seat belt use, (...) (25 years ago, 17-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Trying to understand
|
|
(...) Today it is, because bad money (gov't charity) has driven out good (private charity). It used to be a pure charity decision, the hospital (if for profit) took a deliberate margin hit, or raised the money by charity drives. (25 years ago, 17-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Trying to understand
|
|
(...) Funny this conversation is going on right now. I just got a ticket for my son having his shoulder strap looped around the back of the seat. I just looked up the regs and this law is not enforceable unless I was pulled over for some other (...) (25 years ago, 17-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Trying to understand
|
|
(...) You should also research your locality's seat belt laws. In some states, the seat BELT is required, but not the shoulder strap. Maybe in yours too? (IMHO, a lot of shoulder straps are dangerous if you are shorter than the average male. Mine (...) (25 years ago, 17-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Trying to understand
|
|
Law just changed. A seat belt infraction, if spotted, is enough reason for you to get pulled over in Michigan now. Sorry about that (I think it may have been March 1 that it changed) (25 years ago, 18-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Trying to understand
|
|
(...) So if I read this correctly, the wearing of seatbelts is not mandatory in all US states? This is mandatory in all states and territories of Australia (putting on my seatbelt is second nature to me when I get in the car). I can't understand (...) (25 years ago, 19-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Trying to understand
|
|
(...) And that would mean that 'Socialist' is just a descriptive label, without much specific meaning. Sort of like calling the leader of a country 'President' doesn't mean the country is a Democracy based on inalienable human-rights and personal (...) (25 years ago, 20-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Trying to understand
|
|
(...) But would it work if some participants refused to recognize the validity of evolution? Steve (25 years ago, 20-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Trying to understand
|
|
(...) to (...) Sure--just like biological evolution. Dave! (25 years ago, 20-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Trying to understand
|
|
(...) It is mandatory, on pain of losing federal highway funds (a case of using the purse power to get a state to pass a law instead of passing a federal law. I personally feel it's wrong to do that, but I digress). What is not mandatory is the (...) (25 years ago, 21-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Trying to understand
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes: <schnip!> (...) If I may expand on what Larry has said here; In some US states, drivers are supposed to ensure that they themselves, and their passengers are belted at all times while the vehicle (...) (25 years ago, 21-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Trying to understand
|
|
<snip> (...) Definitely agree here. And if you think I've got an opinion on this, you should hear my wife's comments when she sees someone else's unbelted kids in a moving car. In some ways I'm glad the other car is moving, so she can't completely (...) (25 years ago, 21-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
