"Leonard Blaisdell" > wrote in message
...
> In article >, Cheri >
> wrote:
>
>> It will probably take the death of one of the lawmakers own before it's
>> changed in many places. Then the outrage will be out of this world. Yes,
>> I
>> am cynical about some things.
>
> Lightweight! I'm cynical of everything and am seldom disappointed.
>
> [ObFood] Day old, reheated chicken 'n dumplings.
>
> leo


LOL on the lightweight, and the dinner sounds good.

Cheri

On Monday, April 30, 2018 at 4:40:32 PM UTC-10, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
>
> As described, it sounds wonderful. Some people are paying much more for
> poor coverage. some cannot go to the doctor they had for years, etc.
> If you cannot afford to buy insurance you get a $700 penalty. Far from
> perfect.

In a perfect world insurance payments would be reasonable and affordable. All that needs to be done is to not insure people that drain insurance companies of its valuable cash reserves. Obviously that means old folks and sickly people with pre-existing conditions. Poor folk, white and colored, would have to be thrown under the bus too. Expensive procedures would be allowed only if the patient has enough dough in the bank to pay for it. Of course, convenient payment will be made available to folks with lots of collateral to guarantee repayment.

While we're at it, let's give corporations a whopping tax break. Obviously, it's going to be paid by raiding the medicare system. It's like free money, man! Who's going to stop that from happening? Nobody. The young folks will support this and who cares about old farts anyway? It's all so very perfect!

"jmcquown" wrote in message ...

On 4/30/2018 6:35 AM, Ophelia wrote:
>
>
> "Nancy Young" wrote in message news >
> On 4/29/2018 1:06 PM, Dave Smith wrote:
>
>> There is a lot of press these days on the fear that legalization will
>> lead to lots of drug impaired driving. I don't know why. Just as many
>> young people are smoking dope as there were when I was young.
>
> It's been my observation that people should worry more about
> people driving under the influence of cell phones. My trip to
> DC and back shows it's as bad as ever.
>
> As far as pot being a gateway drug, I can say one thing, the
> gateway to a crappy life can start with being tossed in jail
> for a joint and winding up with a record.
>
> nancy
>
> ==
>
> Using cell phones while driving is illegal here. If you are spotted
> using one you will be in real trouble.

It's illegal here, too, Oph. Heavy fines. The problem is there are
more drivers with cell phones than there are cops to enforce it.

I doubt there is an immediate solution. Pandora's Box has been open for
a long time. Most people aren't willing to give up their precious cell
phones. (I certainly don't understand it.)

I've been seeing ads for Ford Motor Company cars that have a "parental
control" feature. An extra clicker for when their teens are out in the
car. One of the features sets it so cell phones inside the car go
straight to voicemail. Sounds like an excellent feature to me, maybe it
should become standard equipment and across all brands. Sorry folks,
your phones aren't going to work while you're driving.

Jill

==

Now that sounds like a good solution)

On Tuesday, May 1, 2018 at 12:56:27 AM UTC-4, Leonard Blaisdell wrote:
> In article >, graham >
> wrote:
>
> > My father let me have a puff of his pipe when I was about 5 yrs old.
> > That cured me and therefore I have never smoked since! I have always
> > hated the smells associated with the filthy habit.
> > ISTM that much of the evidence in favour of the medical use of MJ is
> > anecdotal. I was sceptical when the early campaigners for legalising it
> > for medical conditions were nearly all potheads.
>
> In what universe is sucking smoke of any type into your lungs a good
> thing? Please someone, defend it.

It's possible to ingest marijuana without smoking it.

Cindy Hamilton

On Monday, April 30, 2018 at 10:58:44 PM UTC-4, Bruce wrote:
> On Mon, 30 Apr 2018 22:40:26 -0400, Ed Pawlowski > wrote:
>
> >On 4/30/2018 9:27 PM, Bruce wrote:
> >> On Mon, 30 Apr 2018 18:17:56 -0700 (PDT), dsi1 >
> >> wrote:
> >
> >>> The takeaway from this is not that people are paying more money. It is that over 20 million more people are now able to get health insurance coverage. That ain't nothing to sneeze at.
> >>>
> >>> The insurance companies cannot legally deny you coverage or charge you more for preexisting conditions. Of course, that means you're going to have to subsidize their treatment. This is bad news for most people but it means that sick people will have a better chance of surviving an awful disease or condition. A society that doesn't throw people under the bus is a more valuable society. That's what I believe anyway...
> >>
> >> Sounds very good and humane, yet everybody's complaining.
> >>
> >
> >As described, it sounds wonderful. Some people are paying much more for
> >poor coverage. some cannot go to the doctor they had for years, etc.
> >If you cannot afford to buy insurance you get a $700 penalty. Far from
> >perfect.
>
> Why is it so hard? Other western countries all have something
> reasonable in place. Although they also all have their share of
> problems with waiting lists etc., but at least they've got the basic
> principle right.

Basically because the health insurance industry gives politicians
almost $170 million per year.

Cindy Hamilton

On Tue, 1 May 2018 03:31:13 -0700 (PDT), Cindy Hamilton
> wrote:

>On Tuesday, May 1, 2018 at 12:56:27 AM UTC-4, Leonard Blaisdell wrote:
>> In article >, graham >
>> wrote:
>>
>> > My father let me have a puff of his pipe when I was about 5 yrs old.
>> > That cured me and therefore I have never smoked since! I have always
>> > hated the smells associated with the filthy habit.
>> > ISTM that much of the evidence in favour of the medical use of MJ is
>> > anecdotal. I was sceptical when the early campaigners for legalising it
>> > for medical conditions were nearly all potheads.
>>
>> In what universe is sucking smoke of any type into your lungs a good
>> thing? Please someone, defend it.
>
>It's possible to ingest marijuana without smoking it.
>
>Cindy Hamilton

I made Brownies for David as we had given up smoking prior to him
finding that a pain reliever.

On Tue, 1 May 2018 03:35:08 -0700 (PDT), Cindy Hamilton
> wrote:

>On Monday, April 30, 2018 at 10:58:44 PM UTC-4, Bruce wrote:
>> On Mon, 30 Apr 2018 22:40:26 -0400, Ed Pawlowski > wrote:
>>
>> >On 4/30/2018 9:27 PM, Bruce wrote:
>> >> On Mon, 30 Apr 2018 18:17:56 -0700 (PDT), dsi1 >
>> >> wrote:
>> >
>> >>> The takeaway from this is not that people are paying more money. It is that over 20 million more people are now able to get health insurance coverage. That ain't nothing to sneeze at.
>> >>>
>> >>> The insurance companies cannot legally deny you coverage or charge you more for preexisting conditions. Of course, that means you're going to have to subsidize their treatment. This is bad news for most people but it means that sick people will have a better chance of surviving an awful disease or condition. A society that doesn't throw people under the bus is a more valuable society. That's what I believe anyway...
>> >>
>> >> Sounds very good and humane, yet everybody's complaining.
>> >>
>> >
>> >As described, it sounds wonderful. Some people are paying much more for
>> >poor coverage. some cannot go to the doctor they had for years, etc.
>> >If you cannot afford to buy insurance you get a $700 penalty. Far from
>> >perfect.
>>
>> Why is it so hard? Other western countries all have something
>> reasonable in place. Although they also all have their share of
>> problems with waiting lists etc., but at least they've got the basic
>> principle right.
>
>Basically because the health insurance industry gives politicians
>almost $170 million per year.
>
>Cindy Hamilton

Blue Cross had been the main one here and they were on their hind legs
screeching when the bill was introduced, happily they didn't win, the
bill did.

dsi1 wrote:

> On Monday, April 30, 2018 at 4:40:32 PM UTC-10, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
> >
> > As described, it sounds wonderful. Some people are paying much more for
> > poor coverage. some cannot go to the doctor they had for years, etc.
> > If you cannot afford to buy insurance you get a $700 penalty. Far from
> > perfect.
>
> In a perfect world insurance payments would be reasonable and affordable. All that needs to be done is to not insure people that drain insurance companies of its valuable cash reserves. Obviously that means old folks and sickly people with pre-existing conditions. Poor folk, white and colored, would have to be thrown under the bus too. Expensive procedures would be allowed only if the patient has enough dough in the bank to pay for it. Of course, convenient payment will be made available to folks with lots of collateral to guarantee repayment.
>
> While we're at it, let's give corporations a whopping tax break. Obviously, it's going to be paid by raiding the medicare system. It's like free money, man! Who's going to stop that from happening? Nobody. The young folks will support this and who cares about old farts anyway? It's all so very perfect!


Switzerland has an excellent health care system, totally privately - run. The government only requires that everyone purchase health insurance from a privately - run insurance company, so no Medicare/Medicaid type programs, no employer - provided insurance. Low incomers get subsidies to help pay for their insurance, if they eventually become higher income, they must eventually re-pay those subsidies. Every insurance company must offer a "basic" plan, and must offer to all customers, they make their money on the "bells and whistles" plans.

Participation is "encouraged" by the dire penalties for a citizen who fails to buy health insurance - the government has the ability to garnish wages, sue, seize assets, and even jail someone who refuses to buy in, so the participation rate is virtually 100%.

We all have our own individual cell phone plans, we makes our choice and we pays our money...Switzerland's health insurance market runs on the same principles.

--
Best
Greg

On 2018-05-01 3:00 AM, dsi1 wrote:
> On Monday, April 30, 2018 at 4:40:32 PM UTC-10, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
>>
>> As described, it sounds wonderful. Some people are paying much
>> more for poor coverage. some cannot go to the doctor they had for
>> years, etc. If you cannot afford to buy insurance you get a $700
>> penalty. Far from perfect.
>
> In a perfect world insurance payments would be reasonable and
> affordable. All that needs to be done is to not insure people that
> drain insurance companies of its valuable cash reserves.

The Canadian health care system costs less per capita than the US
spends, and everyone is covered.

On 4/29/2018 8:40 PM, graham wrote:
>
>>
> Do you know anyone who smokes MJ who didn't start with tobacco?

Yes.

Jill

Cindy Hamilton wrote:
>
> Part of the issue was that the UK doctors thought that the trip to Italy
> would kill him. In the U.S. the parents probably would have been
> free to kill him with the plane ride. Of course, they probably would
> have sued the airline.

Yep!
"It's the end of the world as we know it."

wrote:
>
> Blue Cross had been the main one here and they were on their hind legs
> screeching when the bill was introduced, happily they didn't win, the
> bill did.

Those *******s insured me while in my own business. Offered me
almost nothing since I was individual and not group policy.
Charged me a fortune over 12 years and paid me nothing back. I
still had to pay for doctor visits and prescriptions. And even
though I never cost them a penny, they still raised either my
premium or my deductible every year or two.

Now that I'm going on Medicare (which I have paid for all my
life), that same company is all smiles wanting to now sell me
supplimental insurance. Not going to happen. I'll probably buy
some but never with that greedy company. Never.

On 4/30/2018 11:42 AM, Dave Smith wrote:
> On 2018-04-30 10:20 AM, wrote:
>>
>> So when you have passengers, you don't talk to them??
>
> When you have passengers with you your attention is not being sucked
> away from driving. The passenger is an extra set of eyes.
>
>
>
They can be. I recall a time (no cell phones) when I was a passenger.
I don't know what distracted the friend who was driving but if I hadn't
been there she'd have sailed right through a red light.

Jill

On 4/30/2018 7:04 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
> On 4/30/2018 2:45 PM, Bruce wrote:
>> On Mon, 30 Apr 2018 09:51:15 -0400, Gary > wrote:
>>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> It's been illegal here for several years now.Â* You can use it with
>>>> blue tooth, I do occasionally.
>>>
>>> That's not even good. When driving, ALL of your attention should
>>> be on driving. NO distractions whatsoever. Even using remote blue
>>> tooth takes away your attention. Listening to someone or talking
>>> is NOT paying attention to your driving and to other drivers.
>>>
>>> Every see a very bad car crash? Turn your phone off while
>>> driving.
>>
>> What about listening to the radio then?
>>
>
> Different scenario.Â* It is easy to ignore the radio.

Yep, and the radio isn't saying "Hello? Hello? Are you still there?"

Jill

On 2018-05-01 10:13 AM, graham wrote:

>> I also clearly remember insurance company nasty tactics, endeavouring
>> to show Canadians die because of our system.Â* The infamous one was
>> giving air time to an Ontario woman who had paid through the nose to
>> have a brain 'tumour' removed in the US because our healthcare would
>> not do it.Â* Ultimately it was shown that it was a benign cyst and
>> surgeons recommended against removal because it was fairly deep seated
>> and could cause brain damage removing it, whereas the cyst itself was
>> not causing her any problem, she just didn't like knowing it was
>> there!
>>
> Last week a US politician held that the treatment of Alfie Evans by the
> UK NHS was what happens with "socialised medicine". In the US, that
> family would probably have been made bankrupt and Alfie would have died
> much sooner.


It is curious that the religious types are most likely to insist on
hanging on to the slimmest hopes of a miracle rather than allowing God
to work in his/her mysterious ways. We had a similar case in Ontario
about 5 years ago. The background is that a guy immigrated to Canada
and within a couple months had brain surgery to remove a tumor. He got
meningitis, suffered a seizure and within 6 months of his arrival in
Canada he was brain dead. Then came the battle to keep him alive. The
hospital and doctors wanted to take him off the ventilator that was
keeping him barely alive in a vegetative state. They said there was no
hope of recovery.

That lead to a court fight. The wife insisted that he had to be kept
alive due to their religious beliefs. Eventually the court decided that
the guy would have to be moved to a chronic care facility and that the
family would be responsible for some of the costs, about $170 per month
co-pay for the basic accommodation. The family said they could not
afford that. That may be, but the province was being expected to pay
about $3000 per day to keep him in a special bed in ICU. Given that the
guy had just immigrated a few months early, already suffering from brain
cancer, they had been getting a free ride on a system they never paid
into, and the government has already spent millions of dollars to keep
him in a vegetative coma from which he would never recover.

On 2018-05-01 10:27 AM, jmcquown wrote:
> On 4/29/2018 8:40 PM, graham wrote:
>>
>>>
>> Do you know anyone who smokes MJ who didn't start with tobacco?
>
> Yes.
>

A friend of mine never smoked tobacco in his life, but he loved smoking
pot. He would not smoke hash off the end of a cigarette but would smoke
it out in a pipe, or smoke joints.

On 5/1/2018 12:56 AM, Leonard Blaisdell wrote:
> In article >, graham >
> wrote:
>
>> My father let me have a puff of his pipe when I was about 5 yrs old.
>> That cured me and therefore I have never smoked since! I have always
>> hated the smells associated with the filthy habit.
>> ISTM that much of the evidence in favour of the medical use of MJ is
>> anecdotal. I was sceptical when the early campaigners for legalising it
>> for medical conditions were nearly all potheads.
>
> In what universe is sucking smoke of any type into your lungs a good
> thing? Please someone, defend it.
>
> leo
>


It keeps Pulmonary doctors in business. Without smokers they could end
up working as plumbers.

On 2018-05-01 10:43 AM, jmcquown wrote:
> On 4/30/2018 11:42 AM, Dave Smith wrote:
>> On 2018-04-30 10:20 AM, wrote:
>>>
>>> So when you have passengers, you don't talk to them??
>>
>> When you have passengers with you your attention is not being sucked
>> away from driving. The passenger is an extra set of eyes.
>>
>>
>>
> They can be.Â* I recall a time (no cell phones) when I was a passenger. I
> don't know what distracted the friend who was driving but if I hadn't
> been there she'd have sailed right through a red light.


Lucretia would say that's bullshit.

jmcquown wrote:
>
> I recall a time (no cell phones) when I was a passenger.
> I don't know what distracted the friend who was driving but if I hadn't
> been there she'd have sailed right through a red light.

Not only going through red lights. You should never trust a green
light either. I always slow to almost a stop and look both ways
when I get a green light or even with a stop sign for the other
direction. It's saved me 3-4 times or so from getting broadsided
and killed because of someone else running a red light or a stop
sign.

Driving is so dangerous. You might follow all the rules but
others don't always.

Again I say, when driving turn off cell phone, leave radio off or
at least on low volume and don't talk to any passengers either.
Don't daydream either. See one bad wreck and you'll be convinced.
Just a simple one mile trip to the grocery store often kills
people.

Dave Smith wrote:
>
> jmcquown wrote:
> > They can be. I recall a time (no cell phones) when I was a passenger. I
> > don't know what distracted the friend who was driving but if I hadn't
> > been there she'd have sailed right through a red light.
>
> Lucretia would say that's bullshit.

Lucretia also drives with headphones on for phone talking.
Some day, she will probably crash and die, just spotting and
looking at bags in trees as she drives down the road.

"Cindy Hamilton" > wrote in message
...
> On Tuesday, May 1, 2018 at 12:56:27 AM UTC-4, Leonard Blaisdell wrote:
>> In article >, graham >
>> wrote:
>>
>> > My father let me have a puff of his pipe when I was about 5 yrs old.
>> > That cured me and therefore I have never smoked since! I have always
>> > hated the smells associated with the filthy habit.
>> > ISTM that much of the evidence in favour of the medical use of MJ is
>> > anecdotal. I was sceptical when the early campaigners for legalising it
>> > for medical conditions were nearly all potheads.
>>
>> In what universe is sucking smoke of any type into your lungs a good
>> thing? Please someone, defend it.
>
> It's possible to ingest marijuana without smoking it.
>
> Cindy Hamilton


Sure, a lot of the edibles are CBD's which don't get you high too.

Cheri

On Tue, 01 May 2018 10:35:09 -0400, Gary > wrote:

wrote:
>>
>> Blue Cross had been the main one here and they were on their hind legs
>> screeching when the bill was introduced, happily they didn't win, the
>> bill did.
>
>Those *******s insured me while in my own business. Offered me
>almost nothing since I was individual and not group policy.
>Charged me a fortune over 12 years and paid me nothing back. I
>still had to pay for doctor visits and prescriptions. And even
>though I never cost them a penny, they still raised either my
>premium or my deductible every year or two.
>
>Now that I'm going on Medicare (which I have paid for all my
>life), that same company is all smiles wanting to now sell me
>supplimental insurance. Not going to happen. I'll probably buy
>some but never with that greedy company. Never.

David had supplemental through his job with Blue Cross but when
retirement came they used their knowledge to tell him it would be $300
per month. 21 years ago that was an awful sum so he turned it down,
the extra programme in NS for seniors drugs more than paid for itself
and he was far better off.

"Ophelia" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> "jmcquown" wrote in message ...

> I've been seeing ads for Ford Motor Company cars that have a "parental
> control" feature. An extra clicker for when their teens are out in the
> car. One of the features sets it so cell phones inside the car go
> straight to voicemail. Sounds like an excellent feature to me, maybe it
> should become standard equipment and across all brands. Sorry folks, your
> phones aren't going to work while you're driving.
>
> Jill
>
> ==
>
> Now that sounds like a good solution)

Except the emergency calls need to be able to go through which is probably
accounted for.

Cheri

On 5/1/2018 11:22 AM, Dave Smith wrote:
> On 2018-05-01 10:43 AM, jmcquown wrote:
>> On 4/30/2018 11:42 AM, Dave Smith wrote:
>>> On 2018-04-30 10:20 AM, wrote:
>>>>
>>>> So when you have passengers, you don't talk to them??
>>>
>>> When you have passengers with you your attention is not being sucked
>>> away from driving. The passenger is an extra set of eyes.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> They can be.Â* I recall a time (no cell phones) when I was a passenger.
>> I don't know what distracted the friend who was driving but if I
>> hadn't been there she'd have sailed right through a red light.
>
>
> Lucretia would say that's bullshit.
>
Well, lucretia wasn't there, I was.

Jill

On Tue, 1 May 2018 10:57:31 -0400, jmcquown >
wrote:

>On 4/30/2018 7:04 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
>> On 4/30/2018 2:45 PM, Bruce wrote:
>>> On Mon, 30 Apr 2018 09:51:15 -0400, Gary > wrote:
>>>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> It's been illegal here for several years now.* You can use it with
>>>>> blue tooth, I do occasionally.
>>>>
>>>> That's not even good. When driving, ALL of your attention should
>>>> be on driving. NO distractions whatsoever. Even using remote blue
>>>> tooth takes away your attention. Listening to someone or talking
>>>> is NOT paying attention to your driving and to other drivers.
>>>>
>>>> Every see a very bad car crash? Turn your phone off while
>>>> driving.
>>>
>>> What about listening to the radio then?
>>>
>>
>> Different scenario.* It is easy to ignore the radio.
>
>Yep, and the radio isn't saying "Hello? Hello? Are you still there?"
>
>Jill

When I'm driving and the system is on the phone, I don't answer at
certain points and nobody says "Hello? Hello? Are you still there?"
because they know I am in my car! All same if I call someone who is
answering in their car, it is understood. I think you and Gary, who
don't use it, are letting your imaginations run wild.

"jmcquown" > wrote in message
...
> On 5/1/2018 11:22 AM, Dave Smith wrote:
>> On 2018-05-01 10:43 AM, jmcquown wrote:
>>> On 4/30/2018 11:42 AM, Dave Smith wrote:
>>>> On 2018-04-30 10:20 AM, wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> So when you have passengers, you don't talk to them??
>>>>
>>>> When you have passengers with you your attention is not being sucked
>>>> away from driving. The passenger is an extra set of eyes.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>> They can be. I recall a time (no cell phones) when I was a passenger. I
>>> don't know what distracted the friend who was driving but if I hadn't
>>> been there she'd have sailed right through a red light.
>>
>>
>> Lucretia would say that's bullshit.
>>
> Well, lucretia wasn't there, I was.
>
> Jill


The same thing happened to me a few years ago, they had put a new stop light
on Cherokee Lane where I live and I would have "sailed" right through if not
for my friend saying RED LIGHT! Sometimes extra eyes can be very helpful.

Cheri

On 4/29/2018 10:51 AM, notbob wrote:
> Since I no longer eat a buncha carbs, I can eat more meat. As I've
> done with eating anything with GMOs or antibiotics, I try and eat
> mostly organic, as I'm sure I've bored you all to death with my
> proclamations to the same.
>
Yep!

> I usaully cook my chicken breast by putting one ina SS skillet (w/
> oil). I liberally sprinkle with Old Bay Seasoning and fry long enough
> to jes brown the outsides. I then put the pan in a very low (200°F)
> oven fer about 20-30 mins.
>
I'd have just finished it in the skillet. Only takes a few minutes.

> If pulled soon enough, the meat is quite juicy and tender. My fail?
> I eat so few carbs, anymore, I forget to eat. I left the chicken
> breast in the oven, overnight. Can we all say, "hockey puck"!?
> Howzbout, "chew toy"? I managed to wrestle a piece off the 'puck'. I
> tossed the rest.
>
Ooops, nb!

Jill

On Tue, 01 May 2018 11:36:11 -0400, Gary > wrote:

>Dave Smith wrote:
>>
>> jmcquown wrote:
>> > They can be. I recall a time (no cell phones) when I was a passenger. I
>> > don't know what distracted the friend who was driving but if I hadn't
>> > been there she'd have sailed right through a red light.
>>
>> Lucretia would say that's bullshit.
>
>Lucretia also drives with headphones on for phone talking.
>Some day, she will probably crash and die, just spotting and
>looking at bags in trees as she drives down the road.

I do NOT drive with head phones on. There is a gadget clipped on to
my sun vizor and if my phone rings in my purse it picks the call up. I
simply press the button and that is all. When the call is over, the
other person disconnecting, disconnects mine too.

I can't actually see mine here but it is the same make.
https://www.jabra.ca/support-page/bl...-pairing-guide

On 2018-05-01 8:57 AM, jmcquown wrote:
> On 4/30/2018 7:04 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
>> On 4/30/2018 2:45 PM, Bruce wrote:
>>> On Mon, 30 Apr 2018 09:51:15 -0400, Gary > wrote:
>>>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> It's been illegal here for several years now.Â* You can use it with
>>>>> blue tooth, I do occasionally.
>>>>
>>>> That's not even good. When driving, ALL of your attention should
>>>> be on driving. NO distractions whatsoever. Even using remote blue
>>>> tooth takes away your attention. Listening to someone or talking
>>>> is NOT paying attention to your driving and to other drivers.
>>>>
>>>> Every see a very bad car crash? Turn your phone off while
>>>> driving.
>>>
>>> What about listening to the radio then?
>>>
>>
>> Different scenario.Â* It is easy to ignore the radio.
>
> Yep, and the radio isn't saying "Hello? Hello? Are you still there?"
>
> Jill
I've just been driven home from getting my car serviced and the driver
works 4hrs per day and spends the rest of the time in physio. He was a
passenger in a car that stopped because there was an accident ahead and
was rear-ended at full speed by a texting driver.

On 5/1/2018 11:51 AM, jmcquown wrote:
> On 5/1/2018 11:28 AM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
>> Good, not perfect, probably better than what we have for many.Â* I know
>> of some Canadians that cross the border for surgery as the waits for
>> elective can be long.
>
> "elective" being the operative word.
>
Yes.
Emergencies are taken immediately, non-emergencies may have to wait.

On 5/1/2018 12:11 PM, Cheri wrote:
> "jmcquown" > wrote in message
> ...
>> On 5/1/2018 11:22 AM, Dave Smith wrote:
>>> On 2018-05-01 10:43 AM, jmcquown wrote:
>>>> On 4/30/2018 11:42 AM, Dave Smith wrote:
>>>>> On 2018-04-30 10:20 AM, wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So when you have passengers, you don't talk to them??
>>>>>
>>>>> When you have passengers with you your attention is not being
>>>>> sucked away from driving. The passenger is an extra set of eyes.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> They can be. I recall a time (no cell phones) when I was a
>>>> passenger. I don't know what distracted the friend who was driving
>>>> but if I hadn't been there she'd have sailed right through a red light.
>>>
>>>
>>> Lucretia would say that's bullshit.
>>>
>> Well, lucretia wasn't there, I was.
>>
>> Jill
>
>
> The same thing happened to me a few years ago, they had put a new stop
> light on Cherokee Lane where I live and I would have "sailed" right
> through if not for my friend saying RED LIGHT! Sometimes extra eyes can
> be very helpful.
>
> Cheri

Perfect example! The incident I refer to happened 30 years ago. I did
the same thing as your friend. RED LIGHT! I don't recall if it was a
new (at the time) stop light on that stretch of road. It may well have
been. Point is, I noticed it, she didn't.

A person on the other end of a hands-free (bluetooth) cell phone
conversation wouldn't have known there was a red light.

I think there should be blocking technology in cars. I mentioned in a
couple of other posts, some new Ford vehicles offer "parental controls".
A separate clicker. One of the features is the option to turn cell
phones off inside the vehicle. I think it's an excellent idea.

The problem isn't with *talking*, it's texting. Seems the younger
generation can't unglue themselves from their smartphones. Texting is
like typing. And if you're typing, you are not concentrating on
anything else. You don't have your hands on the steering wheel or your
eyes on the road. THAT is the problem.

There should be a way to shut off cell phones in *all* cars (they'll go
straight to voicemail). Seems to me that would solve much of the problem.

I'm not a schill for Ford, I've never owned one. But another feature
they're offering is to be able to set the radio/sound system so it
cannot be cranked up to the point where you can't hear emergency
vehicles. No more THUMP THUMP THUMP booming music. Oh, and you can
set a maximum speed limit, too.

Of course this technology is being touted for parents of teens who will
be driving their Ford vehicles. But all of it sounds like a good idea,
IMHO. The cell phone shut-off being #1.

Jill

On 5/1/2018 12:10 PM, wrote:
> On Tue, 1 May 2018 10:57:31 -0400, jmcquown >
> wrote:
>
>> On 4/30/2018 7:04 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
>>> On 4/30/2018 2:45 PM, Bruce wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 30 Apr 2018 09:51:15 -0400, Gary > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> It's been illegal here for several years now.Â* You can use it with
>>>>>> blue tooth, I do occasionally.
>>>>>
>>>>> That's not even good. When driving, ALL of your attention should
>>>>> be on driving. NO distractions whatsoever. Even using remote blue
>>>>> tooth takes away your attention. Listening to someone or talking
>>>>> is NOT paying attention to your driving and to other drivers.
>>>>>
>>>>> Every see a very bad car crash? Turn your phone off while
>>>>> driving.
>>>>
>>>> What about listening to the radio then?
>>>>
>>>
>>> Different scenario.Â* It is easy to ignore the radio.
>>
>> Yep, and the radio isn't saying "Hello? Hello? Are you still there?"
>>
>> Jill
>
> When I'm driving and the system is on the phone, I don't answer at
> certain points and nobody says "Hello? Hello? Are you still there?"
> because they know I am in my car! All same if I call someone who is
> answering in their car, it is understood. I think you and Gary, who
> don't use it, are letting your imaginations run wild.
>
Not really. I just don't think anyone *needs* to be talking on the
phone while driving, regardless of method. (BTW, I did NOT bring up that
bags in trees thing, that's totally on Gary again.) As for the radio
not saying Hello hello... I was saying I don't find the radio
distracting. A radio is just background noise, not someone trying to
*talk* to me.

I just have to wonder (about anyone) what's so urgent that the phone
call can't wait.

If I know someone is calling me from their car I ask them to call me
when they get home. It's just how I feel about it. Phones and driving
don't mix.

Jill

On Tuesday, May 1, 2018 at 12:31:17 AM UTC-10, Cindy Hamilton wrote:
>
> It's possible to ingest marijuana without smoking it.
>
> Cindy Hamilton

My mother-in-law was prescribed THC pills to increase her appetite. It was very effective but it made her bonkers. We had to take her off of that. When she died, she was less than 70 lbs.

On 5/1/2018 12:07 PM, Cheri wrote:
> "Ophelia" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>>
>> "jmcquown"* wrote in message ...
>
>> I've been seeing ads for Ford Motor Company cars that have a "parental
>> control" feature.* An extra clicker for when their teens are out in
>> the car.* One of the features sets it so cell phones inside the car go
>> straight to voicemail.* Sounds like an excellent feature to me, maybe
>> it should become standard equipment and across all brands.* Sorry
>> folks, your phones aren't going to work while you're driving.
>>
>> Jill
>>
>> ==
>>
>> Now that sounds like a good solution)
>
> Except the emergency calls need to be able to go through which is
> probably accounted for.
>
> Cheri
>
>
That's a good point. I do know even if a cell phone account is
deactivated, as long as there is a working battery you can use it to
call 911. I'm not sure how this blocking technology could work in an
emergency with shut off cell phones. Kind of a start of an idea,
though, to get people to really stop trying to use their cell phones
when they should be focused on driving.

Jill

"jmcquown" > wrote in message
...
> On 5/1/2018 12:11 PM, Cheri wrote:
>> "jmcquown" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> On 5/1/2018 11:22 AM, Dave Smith wrote:
>>>> On 2018-05-01 10:43 AM, jmcquown wrote:
>>>>> On 4/30/2018 11:42 AM, Dave Smith wrote:
>>>>>> On 2018-04-30 10:20 AM, wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So when you have passengers, you don't talk to them??
>>>>>>
>>>>>> When you have passengers with you your attention is not being sucked
>>>>>> away from driving. The passenger is an extra set of eyes.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> They can be. I recall a time (no cell phones) when I was a passenger.
>>>>> I don't know what distracted the friend who was driving but if I
>>>>> hadn't been there she'd have sailed right through a red light.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Lucretia would say that's bullshit.
>>>>
>>> Well, lucretia wasn't there, I was.
>>>
>>> Jill
>>
>>
>> The same thing happened to me a few years ago, they had put a new stop
>> light on Cherokee Lane where I live and I would have "sailed" right
>> through if not for my friend saying RED LIGHT! Sometimes extra eyes can
>> be very helpful.
>>
>> Cheri
>
> Perfect example! The incident I refer to happened 30 years ago. I did
> the same thing as your friend. RED LIGHT! I don't recall if it was a new
> (at the time) stop light on that stretch of road. It may well have been.
> Point is, I noticed it, she didn't.

> Jill


Yes, I wasn't expecting it, so I simply didn't notice it.

Cheri

"jmcquown" > wrote in message news:bf1GC.29058


> not saying Hello hello... I was saying I don't find the radio distracting.
> A radio is just background noise, not someone trying to *talk* to me.
>
> I just have to wonder (about anyone) what's so urgent that the phone call
> can't wait.
>
> If I know someone is calling me from their car I ask them to call me when
> they get home. It's just how I feel about it. Phones and driving don't
> mix.
>
> Jill


Radio is the same to me, just like a tv on in the background when doing
housework, it doesn't distract me at all. I realize I don't care for many of
the electronic gadgets, only a cell phone in my purse for emergencies, I
believe I used it once in the car when stopped in a huge traffic jam to call
my son to tell him we were going to be late for an event.

Cheri

"jmcquown" > wrote in message
...
> On 5/1/2018 12:07 PM, Cheri wrote:
>> "Ophelia" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>>
>>>
>>> "jmcquown" wrote in message ...
>>
>>> I've been seeing ads for Ford Motor Company cars that have a "parental
>>> control" feature. An extra clicker for when their teens are out in the
>>> car. One of the features sets it so cell phones inside the car go
>>> straight to voicemail. Sounds like an excellent feature to me, maybe it
>>> should become standard equipment and across all brands. Sorry folks,
>>> your phones aren't going to work while you're driving.
>>>
>>> Jill
>>>
>>> ==
>>>
>>> Now that sounds like a good solution)
>>
>> Except the emergency calls need to be able to go through which is
>> probably accounted for.
>>
>> Cheri
>>
>>
> That's a good point. I do know even if a cell phone account is
> deactivated, as long as there is a working battery you can use it to call
> 911. I'm not sure how this blocking technology could work in an emergency
> with shut off cell phones. Kind of a start of an idea, though, to get
> people to really stop trying to use their cell phones when they should be
> focused on driving.
>
> Jill


I bet it's taken into account, possibly if one presses 911 on the keypad it
automatically goes through or something like that.

Cheri

On 5/1/2018 12:35 PM, S Viemeister wrote:
> On 5/1/2018 11:51 AM, jmcquown wrote:
>> On 5/1/2018 11:28 AM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
>>> Good, not perfect, probably better than what we have for many.Â* I
>>> know of some Canadians that cross the border for surgery as the waits
>>> for elective can be long.
>>
>> "elective" being the operative word.
>>
> Yes.
> Emergencies are taken immediately, non-emergencies may have to wait.
>
That's my understanding (vague though it may be) of the Canadian health
system. Elective is not an emergency.

I can't fathom who would want to rush into elective surgery in the first
place. If it's elective it's not life threatening, certainly not urgent
and sometimes not even necessary.

Jill

On 5/1/2018 1:31 PM, Cheri wrote:
> "jmcquown" > wrote in message
> ...
>> On 5/1/2018 12:07 PM, Cheri wrote:
>>> "Ophelia" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> "jmcquown" wrote in message ...
>>>
>>>> I've been seeing ads for Ford Motor Company cars that have a
>>>> "parental control" feature. An extra clicker for when their teens
>>>> are out in the car. One of the features sets it so cell phones
>>>> inside the car go straight to voicemail. Sounds like an excellent
>>>> feature to me, maybe it should become standard equipment and across
>>>> all brands. Sorry folks, your phones aren't going to work while
>>>> you're driving.
>>>>
>>>> Jill
>>>>
>>>> ==
>>>>
>>>> Now that sounds like a good solution)
>>>
>>> Except the emergency calls need to be able to go through which is
>>> probably accounted for.
>>>
>>> Cheri
>>>
>>>
>> That's a good point.* I do know even if a cell phone account is
>> deactivated, as long as there is a working battery you can use it to
>> call 911.* I'm not sure how this blocking technology could work in an
>> emergency with shut off cell phones.* Kind of a start of an idea,
>> though, to get people to really stop trying to use their cell phones
>> when they should be focused on driving.
>>
>> Jill
>
>
> I bet it's taken into account, possibly if one presses 911 on the keypad
> it automatically goes through or something like that.
>
> Cheri

We can only hope. The idea is a good one.

Jill

On 5/1/2018 1:31 PM, Cheri wrote:


>>>
>> That's a good point.* I do know even if a cell phone account is
>> deactivated, as long as there is a working battery you can use it to
>> call 911.* I'm not sure how this blocking technology could work in an
>> emergency with shut off cell phones.* Kind of a start of an idea,
>> though, to get people to really stop trying to use their cell phones
>> when they should be focused on driving.
>>
>> Jill
>
>
> I bet it's taken into account, possibly if one presses 911 on the keypad
> it automatically goes through or something like that.
>
> Cheri

If the car was in an accident it probably shut off anyway or you can
walk away from it to use the phone if you wanted to call for someone else.