If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
The Road to a Bailout They Don't Deserve
Jim Higgins wrote:
> Some info on how other countries handle health ca > > Sick Around the World > http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontl...roundtheworld/ Hah. You could achieve practically any order you wanted simply by how you define the criteria and the weighting factor you decided to place on the given criteria or by using other criteria. I looked at the linked spread sheet. "Performance - On level of health" - Canada 35, U.S. 72? Please! "Overall goal attainment". What the heck does that mean - how is that defined? Is it that country's goals or come U.N defined goals? "Responsiveness Level" - U.S. 1, Canada 7-8 - how much was that factor weighted in the overall score? "Overall health system performance" - U.S. 37, Canada 30. LOL! Again, how was each factor weighted in that calculation (if it even was a calculation - they do not show the overall formula - which formula obviously was arbitrary anyway). What a (typical U.N.) joke. Probably done by the IPCC "scientists". Bill Putney (To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address with the letter 'x') |
Ads |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
The Road to a Bailout They Don't Deserve
Bill Putney wrote:
> Jim Higgins wrote: > >> Some info on how other countries handle health ca >> >> Sick Around the World >> http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontl...roundtheworld/ > > Hah. You could achieve practically any order you wanted simply by how > you define the criteria and the weighting factor you decided to place on > the given criteria or by using other criteria. I looked at the linked > spread sheet. "Performance - On level of health" - Canada 35, U.S. 72? > Please! > > "Overall goal attainment". What the heck does that mean - how is that > defined? Is it that country's goals or come U.N defined goals? > > "Responsiveness Level" - U.S. 1, Canada 7-8 - how much was that factor > weighted in the overall score? > > "Overall health system performance" - U.S. 37, Canada 30. LOL! Again, > how was each factor weighted in that calculation (if it even was a > calculation - they do not show the overall formula - which formula > obviously was arbitrary anyway). > > What a (typical U.N.) joke. Probably done by the IPCC "scientists". > > Bill Putney > (To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my > address with the letter 'x') You have a conclusion you have already arrived at. Pity you choose to alter facts to fit your conclusion. Your loss. -- Civis Romanus Sum |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
The Road to a Bailout They Don't Deserve
Jim Higgins wrote:
> Bill Putney wrote: >> Jim Higgins wrote: >> >>> Some info on how other countries handle health ca >>> >>> Sick Around the World >>> http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontl...roundtheworld/ >> >> Hah. You could achieve practically any order you wanted simply by how >> you define the criteria and the weighting factor you decided to place >> on the given criteria or by using other criteria. I looked at the >> linked spread sheet. "Performance - On level of health" - Canada 35, >> U.S. 72? Please! >> >> "Overall goal attainment". What the heck does that mean - how is that >> defined? Is it that country's goals or come U.N defined goals? >> >> "Responsiveness Level" - U.S. 1, Canada 7-8 - how much was that factor >> weighted in the overall score? >> >> "Overall health system performance" - U.S. 37, Canada 30. LOL! >> Again, how was each factor weighted in that calculation (if it even >> was a calculation - they do not show the overall formula - which >> formula obviously was arbitrary anyway). >> >> What a (typical U.N.) joke. Probably done by the IPCC "scientists". >> >> Bill Putney >> (To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my >> address with the letter 'x') > > You have a conclusion you have already arrived at. Pity you choose to > alter facts to fit your conclusion. Your loss. So where specifically did I go wrong in what I said? What facts did I alter? Let's see - oh that's right - none. Or would you like to list them? Didn't think so. Sounds like you just rattled off your pat answer for anyone who disagrees with you. For example: "Your loss". My loss how? Everything I said is true. The criteria by which they arrived at their conclusions are arbitrary. Re-define the criteria (assuming you can even tell what their criteria mean), and/or apply different weighting factors, and the results would be totally different. But you won't argue that, because - guess what - you are the one who believes what you are told without really analyzing it - as you've just proven. Bill Putney (To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address with the letter 'x') |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
The Road to a Bailout They Don't Deserve
Bill Putney wrote:
> Jim Higgins wrote: >> Bill Putney wrote: >>> Jim Higgins wrote: >>> >>>> Some info on how other countries handle health ca >>>> >>>> Sick Around the World >>>> http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontl...roundtheworld/ >>> >>> Hah. You could achieve practically any order you wanted simply by >>> how you define the criteria and the weighting factor you decided to >>> place on the given criteria or by using other criteria. I looked at >>> the linked spread sheet. "Performance - On level of health" - Canada >>> 35, U.S. 72? Please! >>> >>> "Overall goal attainment". What the heck does that mean - how is >>> that defined? Is it that country's goals or come U.N defined goals? >>> >>> "Responsiveness Level" - U.S. 1, Canada 7-8 - how much was that >>> factor weighted in the overall score? >>> >>> "Overall health system performance" - U.S. 37, Canada 30. LOL! >>> Again, how was each factor weighted in that calculation (if it even >>> was a calculation - they do not show the overall formula - which >>> formula obviously was arbitrary anyway). >>> >>> What a (typical U.N.) joke. Probably done by the IPCC "scientists". >>> >>> Bill Putney >>> (To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my >>> address with the letter 'x') >> >> You have a conclusion you have already arrived at. Pity you choose to >> alter facts to fit your conclusion. Your loss. > > So where specifically did I go wrong in what I said? What facts did I > alter? Let's see - oh that's right - none. Or would you like to list > them? Didn't think so. Sounds like you just rattled off your pat > answer for anyone who disagrees with you. For example: "Your loss". My > loss how? > > Everything I said is true. The criteria by which they arrived at their > conclusions are arbitrary. Re-define the criteria (assuming you can > even tell what their criteria mean), and/or apply different weighting > factors, and the results would be totally different. But you won't > argue that, because - guess what - you are the one who believes what you > are told without really analyzing it - as you've just proven. > > Bill Putney > (To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my > address with the letter 'x') Sad. -- Civis Romanus Sum |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
The Road to a Bailout They Don't Deserve
Jim Higgins wrote:
> Bill Putney wrote: >> Jim Higgins wrote: >>> Bill Putney wrote: >>>> Jim Higgins wrote: >>>> >>>>> Some info on how other countries handle health ca >>>>> >>>>> Sick Around the World >>>>> http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontl...roundtheworld/ >>>> >>>> Hah. You could achieve practically any order you wanted simply by >>>> how you define the criteria and the weighting factor you decided to >>>> place on the given criteria or by using other criteria. I looked at >>>> the linked spread sheet. "Performance - On level of health" - >>>> Canada 35, U.S. 72? Please! >>>> >>>> "Overall goal attainment". What the heck does that mean - how is >>>> that defined? Is it that country's goals or come U.N defined goals? >>>> >>>> "Responsiveness Level" - U.S. 1, Canada 7-8 - how much was that >>>> factor weighted in the overall score? >>>> >>>> "Overall health system performance" - U.S. 37, Canada 30. LOL! >>>> Again, how was each factor weighted in that calculation (if it even >>>> was a calculation - they do not show the overall formula - which >>>> formula obviously was arbitrary anyway). >>>> >>>> What a (typical U.N.) joke. Probably done by the IPCC "scientists". >>>> >>>> Bill Putney >>>> (To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my >>>> address with the letter 'x') >>> >>> You have a conclusion you have already arrived at. Pity you choose >>> to alter facts to fit your conclusion. Your loss. >> >> So where specifically did I go wrong in what I said? What facts did I >> alter? Let's see - oh that's right - none. Or would you like to list >> them? Didn't think so. Sounds like you just rattled off your pat >> answer for anyone who disagrees with you. For example: "Your loss". >> My loss how? >> >> Everything I said is true. The criteria by which they arrived at >> their conclusions are arbitrary. Re-define the criteria (assuming you >> can even tell what their criteria mean), and/or apply different >> weighting factors, and the results would be totally different. But >> you won't argue that, because - guess what - you are the one who >> believes what you are told without really analyzing it - as you've >> just proven. >> >> Bill Putney >> (To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my >> address with the letter 'x') > > Sad. Can't stand to have any discussion of substance can you. Can't blame you. You're coming from a position of weakness, so best for you just to duck the question. You have a nice evening. Bill Putney (To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address with the letter 'x') |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
The Road to a Bailout They Don't Deserve
Jim Higgins wrote:
> Some info on how other countries handle health ca > > Sick Around the World > http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontl...roundtheworld/ Interesting that Frontline did not look at Canada as part of that comparison... |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
The Road to a Bailout They Don't Deserve
On 09/09/08 10:23 am MoPar Man wrote:
>> Some info on how other countries handle health ca >> >> Sick Around the World >> http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontl...roundtheworld/ > > Interesting that Frontline did not look at Canada as part of that > comparison... They didn't look at Australia either. So...? Perce |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
The Road to a Bailout They Don't Deserve
"Percival P. Cassidy" wrote:
> >> Sick Around the World > >> http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontl...roundtheworld/ > > > > Interesting that Frontline did not look at Canada as part of that > > comparison... > > They didn't look at Australia either. So...? PBS is an American public television network that produces content for it's American audience. Australia is further away from the USA (geographically, socially, economically) than Canada is. The inclusion of Canada in that comparison would have been more relavent to the US viewing audience than the inclusion of Australia, and arguably would have been the most relevant comparison vs all the other included countries. Interesting that I have to point out such basic facts to you. |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
The Road to a Bailout They Don't Deserve
The lack of interior width in newer vehicles is NOT related to thicker
doors, speficically, but narrower outside sheetmetal. If you look at a bare door shell on almost any new vehicle, you might see that it's about the same thickness as a 1950 Ford or Dodge or Chevy or GMC pickup truck, but lighter. The new Toyota Tundra pickup's center front seat seating position, considering how high the center floor hump is, looks to be comfortably habitable for small children. This is "changing things"? Of course, ANY manufacurer-designated seating position has come with seat belts since the middle 1960s. I believe that if you check the "curb weight, unladen" of the GM Acadia-type vehicle, you'll find that it's not that much less than a Chevy Tahoe. Only fuel economy differences is the engine and the aerodynamics, but the Tahoe is more geared for towing things than the Acadia-type vehicles (which are the latest evolution of the minivan-type vehicles). Renting a truck, just TRY that sometimes! Few rental companies have very many light duty pickups in their rental fleets. Enterprise is the main one, but getting one from their local neighborhood locations can be "a trick". You can go to one of their larger airport locations and make a reservation for one a week in advance, but that's no guarantee that you can get one--been there, done that, several times with limited success. Others that are more truck-oriented and do commercial fleets might be a better choice, but you'll end up with a more "work truck" than "fancy truck". Also expect to PAY for this, too. Sure, less expensive than monthly payments on one, but still not inexpensive. In the parts of the country which are experiencing housing growth, the necessity of having a truck-chassis-based vehicle in the driveway can be important to haul things from Home Depot or Lowes. Trying to coordinate these activities around the availability of a rental truck for the weekend (rather than a "by the hour" rental from some of the home improvement stores) can mean the difference between getting a project done or not. Not everybody is in that situation nor can a Honda Ridgeline do all that a Silverado do, in many situations, with equivalent fuel mileage. I don't know that Toyota has many "exciting" vehicles in their product portfolio, per se. Some have desireable attributes, but "exciting" doesn't usually come into that spectrum, by observation. Similar with Honda. Nissan, is a different story! I know that many perceive they "need" a truck when they don't, just as some who do could never use a crossover or smaller car-based vehicle as an alternative choice. A "truck-chassis-based" vehicle might never get 30mpg on gasoline, but many Dodge Cummins diesels have been known to hit middle 20s on the highway in prior models. It all depends upon how it's geared and with 500+ lbs/ft of TORQUE, aerodynamics will not be a serious consideration, typically, when its cruising down the highway and not towing something. Not everybody that has a truck might need one except occasionally, but when they need it, they NEED it. In Texas, trucks ARE a viable family car (as they have been for the past 60+ years), even before the extended cab or factory-produced 4-door pickups were available. If somebody has the financial means to afford a truck-based vehicle, let them do it (whether the home owners association likes it or not). Trying to deal with owning one in downtown Manhattan might be a pain, but the whole nation is not "Manhattan". If anybody was concerned about "gas guzzling pickup trucks", they should have been worrying about it 30 years ago when many 1-ton trucks did good to get 10mpg running empty on the highway. But they needed those trucks to make their living and fuel was less expensive then. As for people who "key" Hummers, it should be noted that to repaint one puts more VOCs into the atmosphere than about 100K miles worth of driving one. They might not be really fuel efficient, but vandalizing one on that issue and not considering what might come later with the repaint and additional VOCs is somewhat short-sighted IF the reason it was done was "environmental consciousness". Regards, C-BODY |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
The Road to a Bailout They Don't Deserve
If you might STUFF 5 "normal USA citizens" into a Toyota Corolla, if
there is any significant deflection of the doors from some outside force, somebody inside's going to get hurt . . . or squshed. Just because there might be 5 sets of seat belts doesn't mean 5 adults can be in there comfortable for any amount of time. It was NO problem to comfortably put six "normal USA citizens" into any full size Plymouth or Chevy or Ford up until they started downsizing the platforms in the middle 1970s. What we are calling "full size" is really the same as the "intermediates" of the 1970s in outside and interior seating space--think '68 Plymouth Belvedere or Dodge Coronet. If you look at the real cargo space in almost any modern SUV, it's not that much different than the trunk space of those same Chrysler B-body cars from back then (similar with Ford and GM cars, too)--except that it's stacked vertically rather than horizontally. Where's a '66 Dodge Dart product line-up, but with modern feedback fuel injection and related emissions hardware, when you need it? C-BODY |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
What tailgaters deserve | Sal | Corvette | 42 | June 27th 08 05:18 PM |
Did I deserve to be honked at? | C. E. White[_1_] | Driving | 39 | July 30th 06 11:47 PM |
Do the Intrepid/Concord/Vision get the respect they deserve? | David E. Powell | Chrysler | 7 | January 17th 06 04:44 AM |
Giving line cutters what they deserve | Doug Warner | Driving | 28 | December 14th 05 09:53 PM |
Tourists who invade Aruba get what they deserve | Kenshlock de la Fohrętt | Ford Mustang | 8 | June 8th 05 05:11 PM |