Ford Explorer: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers

In article <net>, Steve <thanks> wrote: 
Didn't "separate but equal" get discredited in the 1950s?

In article <com>,
"C. E. White" <com> wrote: 
to 
the 
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.

"David J. Allen" wrote:
 

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

On Wed, 03 Dec 2003 01:41:01 GMT, com (Brent P)
wrote:
 

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.

--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"

On Tue, 02 Dec 2003 19:02:37 -0500, Bill Putney <net>
wrote:
 

I always found the argument that we can't tell a woman what to do with
her body rather strange.
We most certainly can, and do, just that: it's illegal for a woman to
use illegal drugs on/in her body, for example. That destroys the
argument right there.

--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"

In article <com>, C. E. White wrote:
 

Some do, some don't.

Jerry McG wrote:
 

Then pass a law that creates the same benefits for same sex unions, but don't
try to call it a marriage. It is not. Besides, I keep hearing that there is a
marriage penalty in the tax code.

Ed

In article <com>, Bill Funk wrote: 
 
 

While I only quoted one line from Dr. Parker for the sake of bandwidth
and readability, I am responding to his greater arguements. By using
this example, he has put the spot light on an area where the
government system hurts the quality of care. He has greatly weakened
his overall arguement.

BTW, Hospitals typically don't provide dialysis as an on going treatment,
maybe as an emergency treatement or for a patient that is there for
something else, but the dialysis is the business of dialysis clinics.