|
Major fail!
On 5/1/2018 12:57 PM, jmcquown wrote:
> 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 My car has at least some of those controls. Not just for teenagers, you don;t want the guy at the garage using your car to pick up the kids at school so you can set a fence as well as speed limits. How about an icecream run from the dealer? https://jalopnik.com/canadian-merced...g-c-1825054515 |
Major fail!
"Cheri" wrote in message ... "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 == I would hope so! I hadn't thought of that! |
Major fail!
On 5/1/2018 2:05 PM, jmcquown 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 > > We can only hope.* The idea is a good one. > > Jill You don't even have to be on the phone for them to kill you. Just saw this a few minutes ago https://tinyurl.com/ybd47uw2 The crash investigation results, obtained by The Washington Post under a public records request, show that Wolff, alone and sober, became distracted after reaching for his cellphone. State police investigators were unable to learn why Wolff had reached for the phone. The move, as risky as it is routine among motorists, caused Wolff’s Acura SUV to skid across at least three southbound lanes, hit the wall at the median, and bounce back until it stopped, still partially in the far-left, fast lane. |
Major fail!
On Tue, 1 May 2018 12:57:07 -0400, jmcquown >
wrote: >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. I would class a driver who misses a red light as a **** poor driver who should not have passed the driving test. > >A person on the other end of a hands-free (bluetooth) cell phone >conversation wouldn't have known there was a red light. Not true, I haven't been through any red lights. > >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. Yes great, keep adding to the cost of a car!! I deliberately chose one with no technology to keep the price down, I added the jabra myself for a couple of bucks. > >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. So why are you condemning me? I am not texting, my phone is in my purse at all times, I am talking while watching my driving, and stopping talking if I feel the need, and both hands are on the wheel. > >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. You're getting to be a proper little Nazi aren't you? You don't have a cell phone so you're going to restrict anyone who does. > >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. Why don't you just throw those people into prison, be easier than making cars to thwart them. > >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 Your mindset is with the 50s for some reason, it would seem more reasonable if I was like that! |
Major fail!
On Tue, 1 May 2018 14:41:15 -0400, Ed Pawlowski > wrote:
>On 5/1/2018 2:05 PM, jmcquown 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 >> >> We can only hope.* The idea is a good one. >> >> Jill > >You don't even have to be on the phone for them to kill you. Just saw >this a few minutes ago >https://tinyurl.com/ybd47uw2 >The crash investigation results, obtained by The Washington Post under a >public records request, show that Wolff, alone and sober, became >distracted after reaching for his cellphone. State police investigators >were unable to learn why Wolff had reached for the phone. > >The move, as risky as it is routine among motorists, caused Wolff’s >Acura SUV to skid across at least three southbound lanes, hit the wall >at the median, and bounce back until it stopped, still partially in the >far-left, fast lane. Mine stays where it is, in my purse. If I want to call out, so far only done it to test it out, I simply press a button on the jabra and say 'call whomever' - it did work for me when I tried it, rather surprised me as usually with that sort of command my mid-Atlantic accent confuses the system :) |
Major fail!
On Tue, 1 May 2018 12:57:07 -0400, jmcquown >
wrote: >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: >>>>>> >>>>> 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. >>> >> 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. >> >Perfect example! The incident I refer to happened 30 years ago. See how far you have to go back in time to find an example? Generally speaking, a passenger is more of a distraction than a second pair of eyes. Unless it's a driving teacher. |
Major fail!
On Wed, 02 May 2018 05:19:36 +1000, Bruce >
wrote: >On Tue, 1 May 2018 12:57:07 -0400, jmcquown > >wrote: > >>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: >>>>>>> >>>>>> 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. >>>> >>> 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. >>> >>Perfect example! The incident I refer to happened 30 years ago. > >See how far you have to go back in time to find an example? Generally >speaking, a passenger is more of a distraction than a second pair of >eyes. Unless it's a driving teacher. Or a Certified Backseat Driver. |
Major fail!
On Tue, 1 May 2018 13:33:03 -0400, jmcquown >
wrote: >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.* 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. Never necessary. If it was necessary it wouldn't be called elective. |
Major fail!
|
Major fail!
In article >,
says... > > 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.* 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. Elective surgery *at a time chosen by the patient* can be a factor; for some patients it's really important to fit the timing of their operation to suit other commitments (work, travel, moving house etc). Janet UK --- This email has been checked for viruses by AVG. http://www.avg.com |
Major fail!
On 5/1/2018 4:13 PM, Janet wrote:
> In article >, > says... >> >> 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.* 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. > > Elective surgery *at a time chosen by the patient* can be a factor; > for some patients it's really important to fit the timing of their > operation to suit other commitments (work, travel, moving house etc). > > Janet UK > (snipped annoying advertising) Ed wrote "the waits for elective can be long." That certainly seems to mean there's time to plan ahead to fit it into a specific work, travel or holiday schedule. Elective doesn't mean needs to be done very quickly. Jill |
Major fail!
|
Major fail!
On 5/1/2018 2:46 PM, wrote:
> On Tue, 1 May 2018 13:13:39 -0400, jmcquown > > wrote: > >> 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. > > I was driving home a couple of weeks ago when my granddaughter-in-law > called excited half to death to tell me her daughter Danielle had just > three minutes ago had a little boy! Now look at that! I didn't cause > a car crash! To her - she wanted to tell me right then! Would the outcome have been any different if you didn't answer the phone until thirty minutes or an hour or two later? Nope, the little boy still would have been born. And I'm sure everyone would still have been excited about it. Sure, she *wanted* to tell you. That's nice. It wasn't imperative. Jill |
Major fail!
In article >,
says... > Did you read the Pope wanted him flown to a hospital in the Vatican so > he could be looked after? That is media hype. The doctors from the Vatican hospital agreed the child's condition was fatal and unsurvivable, and concluded that the process of moving him to Italy would stimulate his epilepsy, causing further damage to the child. You can find the Italian medical findings and part of the Pope's letter on the subject, in the court proceedings here http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2018/550.html quote "On 6 September 2017 a firm of Italian lawyers, instructed by the family. requested that a clinical team from Ospedale Pediatrico Bambino Gesù in Rome assess Alfie. Three specialists from Bambino Gesù in Rome reviewed Alfie's records and on 11 September 2017 travelled to Alder Hey to examine him. They too agreed that Alfie had a neurodegenerative disease and fitting disorder which was untreatable. They agreed that even if further testing were carried out, it would not provide a cure or, "bring a different treatment plan." Nowhere in their report was it suggested that it would be in Alfie's best interests for ventilation to be continued. Bambino Gesù were, however, prepared to treat Alfie at their hospital in Rome. Unfortunately it was not until 27 October 2017, six weeks later, that the Bambino Gesù report was disclosed to the Trust. In the body of the report Bambino Gesù said in respect of the proposal that Alfie be transferred to their ca "It is possible that during travel Alfie may present continuous seizures due to stimulations related to the transportation and flight: these seizures might induce further damage to (the) brain, being the whole procedure of transportation at risk." The judge went on to set out in full an open letter from His Holiness Pope Francis sent to the president of the Pontifical Academy for Life, dated November 2017. It is not necessary to set out that open letter to any great extent, save to include two brief references: ""Consequently, it is morally licit not to decide not to adopt therapeutic measures, or to discontinue them, when their use does not meet that ethical and humanistic standard that would later be called "due proportion in the use of remedies" ?. ? It is clear that not adopting, or else suspending, disproportionate measures, means avoiding over-zealous treatment; from an ethical standpoint, it is completely different from euthanasia, which is always wrong, in that the intent of euthanasia is to end life and cause death. Needless to say, in the face of critical situations and in clinical practice, the factors that come into play are often difficult to evaluate. To determine whether a clinically appropriate medical intervention is actually proportionate, the mechanical application of a general rule is not sufficient. There needs to be careful discernment of the moral object, the attending circumstances and the intentions of those involved. In caring for and accompanying a given patient, the personal and relational elements in his or her life and death, which is after all, the last moment in life, must be given a consideration benefitting human dignity." Janet UK --- This email has been checked for viruses by AVG. http://www.avg.com |
Major fail!
|
Major fail!
On Tue, 1 May 2018 17:01:54 -0400, jmcquown >
wrote: >On 5/1/2018 2:46 PM, wrote: >> On Tue, 1 May 2018 13:13:39 -0400, jmcquown > >> wrote: >> >>> 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.* 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. >>>> >>> 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. >> >> I was driving home a couple of weeks ago when my granddaughter-in-law >> called excited half to death to tell me her daughter Danielle had just >> three minutes ago had a little boy! Now look at that! I didn't cause >> a car crash! To her - she wanted to tell me right then! > >Would the outcome have been any different if you didn't answer the phone >until thirty minutes or an hour or two later? Nope, the little boy >still would have been born. And I'm sure everyone would still have been >excited about it. Sure, she *wanted* to tell you. That's nice. It >wasn't imperative. > >Jill It was imperative and I am glad she felt it was but realise you can't/won't understand. |
Major fail!
|
Major fail!
On 5/1/2018 3:45 PM, Bruce wrote:
>>> >>> See how far you have to go back in time to find an example? Generally >>> speaking, a passenger is more of a distraction than a second pair of >>> eyes. Unless it's a driving teacher. >> >> Or a Certified Backseat Driver. > > AKA wife? > Often the case, but not for me. My wife is an excellent navigator and helped on cross country and cross European trips. |
Major fail!
On 5/1/2018 3:38 PM, Bruce wrote:
> On Tue, 1 May 2018 13:33:03 -0400, jmcquown > > wrote: > >> 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. > > Never necessary. If it was necessary it wouldn't be called elective. > I had elective surgery. I had a choice. Have surgery or walk in pain and use crutches or wheelchair for the rest of your life. Was not a hard decision and walked out with no crutches. |
Major fail!
On Tue, 1 May 2018 17:53:15 -0400, Ed Pawlowski > wrote:
>On 5/1/2018 3:38 PM, Bruce wrote: >> On Tue, 1 May 2018 13:33:03 -0400, jmcquown > >> wrote: >> >>> 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.* 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. >> >> Never necessary. If it was necessary it wouldn't be called elective. >> > >I had elective surgery. I had a choice. Have surgery or walk in pain >and use crutches or wheelchair for the rest of your life. Was not a >hard decision and walked out with no crutches. So it wasn't life saving, but still pretty necessary. Not like a nose job. |
Major fail!
On 5/1/2018 5:42 PM, wrote:
> On Tue, 1 May 2018 17:01:54 -0400, jmcquown > > wrote: > >> On 5/1/2018 2:46 PM, wrote: >>> On Tue, 1 May 2018 13:13:39 -0400, jmcquown > >>> wrote: >>> >>>> 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. >>> >>> I was driving home a couple of weeks ago when my granddaughter-in-law >>> called excited half to death to tell me her daughter Danielle had just >>> three minutes ago had a little boy! Now look at that! I didn't cause >>> a car crash! To her - she wanted to tell me right then! >> >> Would the outcome have been any different if you didn't answer the phone >> until thirty minutes or an hour or two later? Nope, the little boy >> still would have been born. And I'm sure everyone would still have been >> excited about it. Sure, she *wanted* to tell you. That's nice. It >> wasn't imperative. >> >> Jill > > It was imperative and I am glad she felt it was but realise you > can't/won't understand. > No, I don't understand. Let's just agree to disagree. Jill |
Major fail!
On 5/1/2018 6:08 PM, Bruce wrote:
> On Tue, 1 May 2018 17:53:15 -0400, Ed Pawlowski > wrote: > >> On 5/1/2018 3:38 PM, Bruce wrote: >>> On Tue, 1 May 2018 13:33:03 -0400, jmcquown > >>> wrote: >>> >>>> 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. >>> >>> Never necessary. If it was necessary it wouldn't be called elective. >>> >> >> I had elective surgery. I had a choice. Have surgery or walk in pain >> and use crutches or wheelchair for the rest of your life. Was not a >> hard decision and walked out with no crutches. > > So it wasn't life saving, but still pretty necessary. Not like a nose > job. > Yes, varying degrees of necessity, not life threatening. |
Major fail!
On Tue, 1 May 2018 21:31:46 -0400, Ed Pawlowski > wrote:
>On 5/1/2018 6:08 PM, Bruce wrote: >> On Tue, 1 May 2018 17:53:15 -0400, Ed Pawlowski > wrote: >> >>> On 5/1/2018 3:38 PM, Bruce wrote: >>>> On Tue, 1 May 2018 13:33:03 -0400, jmcquown > >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> 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.* 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. >>>> >>>> Never necessary. If it was necessary it wouldn't be called elective. >>>> >>> >>> I had elective surgery. I had a choice. Have surgery or walk in pain >>> and use crutches or wheelchair for the rest of your life. Was not a >>> hard decision and walked out with no crutches. >> >> So it wasn't life saving, but still pretty necessary. Not like a nose >> job > >Yes, varying degrees of necessity, not life threatening. My wife had two artificial knees installed at the same time, she already was down hill skiing at the end of the season. It all depends on the doctor, and the rehab. Last week she went on a 30 mile bike ride. She's already golfing 18 holes, no cart. |
Major fail!
"Ed Pawlowski" > wrote in message
... > 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. But what if you were behind a drunk driver who was driving erratically and they are unable to pull over or something like that, including road rage. There has to be a fail safe for emergencies. Cheri |
Major fail!
> wrote in message
... > On Tue, 1 May 2018 12:57:07 -0400, jmcquown > > wrote: > >>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. > > I would class a driver who misses a red light as a **** poor driver > who should not have passed the driving test. >> >>A person on the other end of a hands-free (bluetooth) cell phone >>conversation wouldn't have known there was a red light. > > Not true, I haven't been through any red lights. Not that you know of at any rate. Cheri |
Major fail!
On Wed, 02 May 2018 05:38:10 +1000, Bruce >
wrote: >On Tue, 1 May 2018 13:33:03 -0400, jmcquown > >wrote: > >>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.* 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. > >Never necessary. If it was necessary it wouldn't be called elective. That is not so. According to the Australian Department of Health elective surgery is medically necessary, just not considered an emergency. It is called elective surgery because it can be scheduled in advance rather than performed in an emergency situation and includes tonsillectomies, scoliosis surgery and hernias. It can sometimes be urgent too, being scheduled only 24 hours in advance, and still not considered an emergency. JB |
Major fail!
On Wed, 02 May 2018 08:08:16 +1000, Bruce >
wrote: >On Tue, 1 May 2018 17:53:15 -0400, Ed Pawlowski > wrote: > >>On 5/1/2018 3:38 PM, Bruce wrote: >>> On Tue, 1 May 2018 13:33:03 -0400, jmcquown > >>> wrote: >>> >>>> 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.* 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. >>> >>> Never necessary. If it was necessary it wouldn't be called elective. >>> >> >>I had elective surgery. I had a choice. Have surgery or walk in pain >>and use crutches or wheelchair for the rest of your life. Was not a >>hard decision and walked out with no crutches. > >So it wasn't life saving, but still pretty necessary. Not like a nose >job. Nose jobs are not elective surgery and will not be performed in public hospitals in Australia, unless the nose job involves accident repair or something like that. Cosmetic surgery is not covered by the public health system. JB |
Major fail!
On Tue, 1 May 2018 16:49:22 -0400, jmcquown >
wrote: >On 5/1/2018 4:13 PM, Janet wrote: >> In article >, >> says... >>> >>> 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.* 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. >> >> Elective surgery *at a time chosen by the patient* can be a factor; >> for some patients it's really important to fit the timing of their >> operation to suit other commitments (work, travel, moving house etc). >> >> Janet UK >> >(snipped annoying advertising) > >Ed wrote "the waits for elective can be long." That certainly seems to >mean there's time to plan ahead to fit it into a specific work, travel >or holiday schedule. Elective doesn't mean needs to be done very quickly. > >Jill Not always so. It is considered elective if it can be scheduled in advance, even if it is only 24 hours in advance. Elective surgery is anything that is necessary that is not performed in an emergency situation. JB |
Major fail!
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. ;) You don't need headphones for bluetooth. If my phone rings in the car, it cuts off the music and broadcasts through the speakers. JB |
Major fail!
On Wed, 02 May 2018 12:30:39 +0800, JBurns >
wrote: >On Wed, 02 May 2018 08:08:16 +1000, Bruce > >wrote: > >>On Tue, 1 May 2018 17:53:15 -0400, Ed Pawlowski > wrote: >> >>>On 5/1/2018 3:38 PM, Bruce wrote: >>>> On Tue, 1 May 2018 13:33:03 -0400, jmcquown > >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> 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.* 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. >>>> >>>> Never necessary. If it was necessary it wouldn't be called elective. >>>> >>> >>>I had elective surgery. I had a choice. Have surgery or walk in pain >>>and use crutches or wheelchair for the rest of your life. Was not a >>>hard decision and walked out with no crutches. >> >>So it wasn't life saving, but still pretty necessary. Not like a nose >>job. > >Nose jobs are not elective surgery Of course they are. >and will not be performed in public >hospitals in Australia, unless the nose job involves accident repair >or something like that. Nobody said otherwise. >Cosmetic surgery is not covered by the public >health system. Nobody said it was. |
Major fail!
On Wed, 02 May 2018 12:28:30 +0800, JBurns >
wrote: >On Wed, 02 May 2018 05:38:10 +1000, Bruce > >wrote: > >>On Tue, 1 May 2018 13:33:03 -0400, jmcquown > >>wrote: >> >>>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.* 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. >> >>Never necessary. If it was necessary it wouldn't be called elective. > >That is not so. According to the Australian Department of Health >elective surgery is medically necessary, just not considered an >emergency. It is called elective surgery because it can be scheduled >in advance rather than performed in an emergency situation and >includes tonsillectomies, scoliosis surgery and hernias. > >It can sometimes be urgent too, being scheduled only 24 hours in >advance, and still not considered an emergency. "Elective surgeries include all optional surgeries performed for non-medical reasons." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elective_surgery |
Major fail!
On Wed, 02 May 2018 14:59:53 +1000, Bruce >
wrote: >On Wed, 02 May 2018 12:28:30 +0800, JBurns > >wrote: > >>On Wed, 02 May 2018 05:38:10 +1000, Bruce > >>wrote: >> >>>On Tue, 1 May 2018 13:33:03 -0400, jmcquown > >>>wrote: >>> >>>>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.* 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. >>> >>>Never necessary. If it was necessary it wouldn't be called elective. >> >>That is not so. According to the Australian Department of Health >>elective surgery is medically necessary, just not considered an >>emergency. It is called elective surgery because it can be scheduled >>in advance rather than performed in an emergency situation and >>includes tonsillectomies, scoliosis surgery and hernias. >> >>It can sometimes be urgent too, being scheduled only 24 hours in >>advance, and still not considered an emergency. > >"Elective surgeries include all optional surgeries performed for >non-medical reasons." > >https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elective_surgery You are quoting Wiki, not the relevant Dept of Health. Squirming will not get you of of spouting falsehoods. I spit on your cite and raise you this http://healthywa.wa.gov.au/Articles/...ective-surgery and this http://www.bhi.nsw.gov.au/__data/ass...iveSurgery.pdf If you are going to try to prove your point you better make sure you are quoting the departments that set the meaning, besides which, The first paragraph of sour cite disagrees with you. JB |
Major fail!
On Wed, 02 May 2018 14:57:47 +1000, Bruce >
wrote: >On Wed, 02 May 2018 12:30:39 +0800, JBurns > >wrote: > >>On Wed, 02 May 2018 08:08:16 +1000, Bruce > >>wrote: >> >>>On Tue, 1 May 2018 17:53:15 -0400, Ed Pawlowski > wrote: >>> >>>>On 5/1/2018 3:38 PM, Bruce wrote: >>>>> On Tue, 1 May 2018 13:33:03 -0400, jmcquown > >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> 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.* 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. >>>>> >>>>> Never necessary. If it was necessary it wouldn't be called elective. >>>>> >>>> >>>>I had elective surgery. I had a choice. Have surgery or walk in pain >>>>and use crutches or wheelchair for the rest of your life. Was not a >>>>hard decision and walked out with no crutches. >>> >>>So it wasn't life saving, but still pretty necessary. Not like a nose >>>job. >> >>Nose jobs are not elective surgery > >Of course they are. No they are not. The term Elective Surgery is one that is set to mean a certain thing, by the Department of Health within the public health system. This is what was being discussed, not whether someone elects to have a nose job. Elective in this case means there is some flexibility with time not necessity. You are free to make up your own meanings but that does not impact one bit on what the Dept of Health means by Elective Surgery. JB <snip> |
Major fail!
On Wed, 02 May 2018 13:33:11 +0800, JBurns >
wrote: >On Wed, 02 May 2018 14:59:53 +1000, Bruce > >wrote: > >>On Wed, 02 May 2018 12:28:30 +0800, JBurns > >>wrote: >> >>>On Wed, 02 May 2018 05:38:10 +1000, Bruce > >>>wrote: >>> >>>>On Tue, 1 May 2018 13:33:03 -0400, jmcquown > >>>>wrote: >>>> >>>>>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. >>>> >>>>Never necessary. If it was necessary it wouldn't be called elective. >>> >>>That is not so. According to the Australian Department of Health >>>elective surgery is medically necessary, just not considered an >>>emergency. It is called elective surgery because it can be scheduled >>>in advance rather than performed in an emergency situation and >>>includes tonsillectomies, scoliosis surgery and hernias. >>> >>>It can sometimes be urgent too, being scheduled only 24 hours in >>>advance, and still not considered an emergency. >> >>"Elective surgeries include all optional surgeries performed for >>non-medical reasons." >> >>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elective_surgery > >You are quoting Wiki, not the relevant Dept of Health. Do you know what you can do with that "Dept of Health" that you seem so fond of? :) I hope it fits. |
Major fail!
On Wed, 02 May 2018 15:44:00 +1000, Bruce >
wrote: >On Wed, 02 May 2018 13:33:11 +0800, JBurns > >wrote: > >>On Wed, 02 May 2018 14:59:53 +1000, Bruce > >>wrote: >> >>>On Wed, 02 May 2018 12:28:30 +0800, JBurns > >>>wrote: >>> >>>>On Wed, 02 May 2018 05:38:10 +1000, Bruce > >>>>wrote: >>>> >>>>>On Tue, 1 May 2018 13:33:03 -0400, jmcquown > >>>>>wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>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. >>>>> >>>>>Never necessary. If it was necessary it wouldn't be called elective. >>>> >>>>That is not so. According to the Australian Department of Health >>>>elective surgery is medically necessary, just not considered an >>>>emergency. It is called elective surgery because it can be scheduled >>>>in advance rather than performed in an emergency situation and >>>>includes tonsillectomies, scoliosis surgery and hernias. >>>> >>>>It can sometimes be urgent too, being scheduled only 24 hours in >>>>advance, and still not considered an emergency. >>> >>>"Elective surgeries include all optional surgeries performed for >>>non-medical reasons." >>> >>>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elective_surgery >> >>You are quoting Wiki, not the relevant Dept of Health. > >Do you know what you can do with that "Dept of Health" that you seem >so fond of? :) I hope it fits. So, you get proven wrong and then resort to this? Typical. For those who may be interested in this mundane subject I have restored my cites. http://healthywa.wa.gov.au/Articles/...ective-surgery http://www.bhi.nsw.gov.au/__data/ass...iveSurgery.pdf JB |
Major fail!
On Wed, 02 May 2018 13:56:51 +0800, JBurns >
wrote: >On Wed, 02 May 2018 15:44:00 +1000, Bruce > >wrote: > >>On Wed, 02 May 2018 13:33:11 +0800, JBurns > >>wrote: >> >>>On Wed, 02 May 2018 14:59:53 +1000, Bruce > >>>wrote: >>> >>>>On Wed, 02 May 2018 12:28:30 +0800, JBurns > >>>>wrote: >>>> >>>>>On Wed, 02 May 2018 05:38:10 +1000, Bruce > >>>>>wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>On Tue, 1 May 2018 13:33:03 -0400, jmcquown > >>>>>>wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>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. >>>>>> >>>>>>Never necessary. If it was necessary it wouldn't be called elective. >>>>> >>>>>That is not so. According to the Australian Department of Health >>>>>elective surgery is medically necessary, just not considered an >>>>>emergency. It is called elective surgery because it can be scheduled >>>>>in advance rather than performed in an emergency situation and >>>>>includes tonsillectomies, scoliosis surgery and hernias. >>>>> >>>>>It can sometimes be urgent too, being scheduled only 24 hours in >>>>>advance, and still not considered an emergency. >>>> >>>>"Elective surgeries include all optional surgeries performed for >>>>non-medical reasons." >>>> >>>>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elective_surgery >>> >>>You are quoting Wiki, not the relevant Dept of Health. >> >>Do you know what you can do with that "Dept of Health" that you seem >>so fond of? :) I hope it fits. > >So, you get proven wrong and then resort to this? No, I'm right and on top of that, I'm not obsessed with the Australian "Dept of health". |
Major fail!
On 5/2/2018 12:30 AM, JBurns wrote:
> > Nose jobs are not elective surgery and will not be performed in public > hospitals in Australia, unless the nose job involves accident repair > or something like that. Cosmetic surgery is not covered by the public > health system. > > JB > They should be. Ugly people are not good for tourism. |
Major fail!
On Wed, 2 May 2018 08:11:46 -0400, Ed Pawlowski > wrote:
>On 5/2/2018 12:30 AM, JBurns wrote: > >> >> Nose jobs are not elective surgery and will not be performed in public >> hospitals in Australia, unless the nose job involves accident repair >> or something like that. Cosmetic surgery is not covered by the public >> health system. >> >> JB >> > >They should be. Ugly people are not good for tourism. Yes, all those nosey Australians keep the Chinese away. |
Major fail!
On 2018-05-02 12:59 AM, Bruce wrote:
> On Wed, 02 May 2018 12:28:30 +0800, JBurns > >> It can sometimes be urgent too, being scheduled only 24 hours in >> advance, and still not considered an emergency. > > "Elective surgeries include all optional surgeries performed for > non-medical reasons." > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elective_surgery Elective surgery: Surgery that is subject to choice (election). The choice may be made by the patient or doctor. For example, the time when a surgical procedure is performed may be elective. The procedure is beneficial to the patient but does not need be done at a particular time. As opposed to urgent or emergency surgery. https://www.medicinenet.com/script/m...ticlekey=14367 |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:26 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
FoodBanter