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')

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

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')

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

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')

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...

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

"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.

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

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