Health care - thanks for reading this +++ : -) +++
in [Golf]
|
From: Jack Hollis on 1 Oct 2009 09:24 On Wed, 30 Sep 2009 17:57:16 -0700 (PDT), Dinosaur_Sr <frostback2002(a)att.net> wrote: >Movies are all fake. The people in them are acting. You know this. >Again, how real the basis of the libretto is...well that is >debatable..you and Jack Hollis see it differently, for example. Not >much sense in basing your perception of reality on movies. The movie is, for the most part, factual. Of course, the one thing that is missing (in the movie and in real life) is any evidence that PG&E had anything to do with the medical problems of the people.
From: Jack Hollis on 1 Oct 2009 09:28 On Thu, 1 Oct 2009 00:03:45 -0700, "gray asphalt" <dontwrite(a)gmail.com> wrote: >It occurs to me that anyone wanting to give poor care >to the elderly to save money will be quite happy to >disable lawyers to the point where they, nursing homes, >hospitals, doctors will not be held accountable for >their mistakes and their decisions to end life earlier >than it needs to be ... especially insurance companies >who have to pay for very expensive end of life procedures. Actually, by the time most people have gotten to these very expensive end life procedures, they're on Medicare.
From: William Clark on 1 Oct 2009 21:21 In article <alangbaker-BD434E.19131530092009(a)news.shawcable.com>, Alan Baker <alangbaker(a)telus.net> wrote: > In article <nfs7c5tot1pvgtd4pm44pr3da5r4kli9a6(a)4ax.com>, > Jack Hollis <xsleeper(a)aol.com> wrote: > > > On Wed, 30 Sep 2009 02:29:39 -0700 (PDT), benvhoff > > <benvhoff(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > >"Fumento cites William Blot, a paid expert for PG&E, who has earned > > >as > > >much as $400 an hour testifying on behalf of the utility ... PG&E > > >funded > > >the study ... these (studies) are vastly are vastly outnumbered in > > >scientific > > >literature by animal studies that positively establish the compound's > > >toxicity... " > > > > > >http://www.fumento.com/brocklett.html > > > > > >Do you discount Union Carbide's responsibility for the death > > >and suffering of thousands of people in India, also? > > > > The fact is there is absolutely no evidence that PG&E's activities > > harmed anyone. The epidemiological evidence, which is the best way to > > determine these things, shows no increase in cancer rates for the > > population in the area. If you have some studies that contradict > > this, then I'd like to see them. > > Jack Hollis: the expert on everything! Well, expect calling Presidential elections. He totally blew that one - that's why he disappeared for six months in shame and embarrassment. But, alas, he's back . . . . .
From: William Clark on 1 Oct 2009 21:40 Some of the details of who is buying the current health care debate, and how much they are paying for it: http://tiny.cc/cgZwz Makes you sick just to read it.
From: gray asphalt on 1 Oct 2009 22:59
"Jack Hollis" <xsleeper(a)aol.com> wrote in message news:nfs7c5tot1pvgtd4pm44pr3da5r4kli9a6(a)4ax.com... > On Wed, 30 Sep 2009 02:29:39 -0700 (PDT), benvhoff > <benvhoff(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> >>"Fumento cites William Blot, a paid expert for PG&E, who has earned >>as >>much as $400 an hour testifying on behalf of the utility ... PG&E >>funded >>the study ... these (studies) are vastly are vastly outnumbered in >>scientific >>literature by animal studies that positively establish the compound's >>toxicity... " >> >>http://www.fumento.com/brocklett.html >> >>Do you discount Union Carbide's responsibility for the death >>and suffering of thousands of people in India, also? > > The fact is there is absolutely no evidence that PG&E's activities > harmed anyone. The epidemiological evidence, which is the best way to > determine these things, shows no increase in cancer rates for the > population in the area. If you have some studies that contradict > this, then I'd like to see them. > > Bhopal, on the other hand, is a different story. This was a joint > venture of Union Carbide and the Indian Government gone bad. I would > say that if anything like this happened in the US that people would > end up in jail for criminal negligence. Of course, because the Indian > Government was half owner, the consequences were no as severe. > > Corporations and businesses do hurt people and deserve to be held > criminally liable, However, PG&E did not do any such thing. The bad > guys in this case were the lawyers and EB, who probably originally had > no idea that she was being used. Fact is, the lawyers don't care if > PG&E did anything wrong or not. They just want to extort money from > them if they can. Sad thing is that the people who paid the $330 > million were PS&G's customers. PG&E paid out over $300 million. One of the arguements against their culpability is that all of the facts weren't in about what that chemical did to people and it wasn't as bad as the information at the time showed. Well, that same data is what PG&E believed to be true and what they ignored when using chromium. PG&E started buying up property to cover themselves, an obvious attempt at covering their own asses. I don't know how much of "Erin Brockovitch", the movie was hollywood and how much was fact but the arbritation panel found against PG&E. It wasn't a jury of uninformed citizens. The chromium levels were far above the legal limit. Did you read the letter from Ms. Brockovitch disputing the information you posted whose source was someone employed by PG&E? Maybe you are right and it was ok for PG&E to break the law and lie about it but Erin Brockovitch has responded to the Wall Street Journal article and I havnen't seen a reply to her letter. Again, did you read her letter? |