Proposed mandatory PFD law
 

snicker

--


Keith
__
If at first you don't succeed ... well, so much for skydiving.
"Garuda" wrote in message
...
Work on your sentence structure, eh!

"prodigal1" wrote in part:

Go sail your boat whinge-boy and bitch about how hard done by you are.

Proposed mandatory PFD law
 

On Fri, 13 Aug 2004 00:30:38 GMT, prodigal1 wrote:
///
So you resent the fact that someone who spent perhaps a dozen years in
University and many many dollars learning an art and a science that
saves people's lives, gets remunerated at a level commensurate with
their skills.

If he doesn't, I certainly do. But then, I resent your surly tone as
well. People are not paid according to their
training and education, I'm afraid, or the many PhDs who've trained as
long, and with considerably more intellectual rigor would be paid the
same as physicians, who pull down rather more than a quarter mill p.a.
on average in this fair country.

They get this amount because they can get away with it.
The market cannot select a lower cost option for medical attention or
drugs (other than herbs - doing a gang-buster business) because it has
been legislated out.

Take a look at medical pay in countries where the population lives
LONGER on average than the US citizen - the pay's about half the US
rate.

Brian W

Proposed mandatory PFD law
 

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 12 Aug 2004 09:51:18 -0400, "Vito" said:

The costs are staggering only because all medical care in the US is a rip
off.

Shouldn't be any surprise, but calling the high costs a "rip off" is just
plain simple-minded. The costs are staggering because for some 60 years
this
country has adopted a series of policies that remove the usual market
incentives from this sector of the economy. .....

The root cause is the people who lobbied these policies into effect. Blaming
"policies" is almost as "simple minded" as blaming guns for shootings. If
we'd admit that AMA is a union, as controlled by criminals as the Teamsters
were under Hoffa, and prosecute the leaders under price-fixing and RICO laws
we might see changes.

Proposed mandatory PFD law - a suggestion
 

Since tha article that started this posting was a call for papers from
interested parties, I guess I should write one and send it along.

According to Coasty friends: the vast majority of bodies recovered are
men and the fly is open (the presumption is that they were in the
process of whizzing over the side {legal most places} and got toppled
into the water).

It would seem this could be eliminated as a cause of drownding by either
requiring that all boats have a enclosed head (with holding tank - of
course) or requiring that clothing wore on board not have a fly.

Matt Colie



Scott McFadden wrote:
"Jeff Morris" wrote in message ...


You have a good point. Florida leads the country in boating fatalities (over
the last 5 years), but is lagging behind in drownings. However, you make up
the difference by having the largest number of non-drowning boating fatalities,
caused by leading the way (by a huge margin) in collisions with fixed objects.

Clearly, while Florida may deserve an exemption for PFD's, they should be
required to build all bridges out of foam rubber.


I believe a realistic first step would be to prohibit the consumption
of alcoholic beverages by the operator of a power boat. (It is legal
to do so in Fla)

Do that, see if it doesn't effect the accident stats, and get back to
me on this mandatory PFD wearing crap. (+-5yrs)

I was both a Red Cross and Ocean Rescue lifeguard and I didn't need no
freaking PFD for either of them.

So, it is real simple, people going out in boats should know how to
swim. Contact your local YMCA or Red Cross for lessons. There really
is no excuse for failing to do so as even little, teeny, tiny children
are taught.

Perhaps we should make that bit of common sense "mandatory".
--
SJM

And about time too! It is a shame that gov't has to legislate 'common
sense' but what can you do?

Then certainly no-one should be allowed to swim without a pfd on!
Right? Don't be stupid.

On Tue, 10 Aug 2004 17:52:46 GMT,
Don White wrote:

"WaIIy" wrote in message
...

Don has trouble thinking for himself, like many these days.


Wally...I know when to put on a PFD and have no trouble doing so. I
guess I'm willing to 'be told' when to buckle up if it will save lives
of others not quite so safety conscious. To me, it's the same as
numerous other laws, such as seat belts, helmets for motorcycle and
bicycle riders. hard hats at a construction site etc. etc.
Reasonable people have a duty to save you 'free thinkers' from
yourselves.



When were you planning on banning tobacco, fast food, and mandating
excersize?

--
Jim Richardson http://www.eskimo.com/~warlock
"Next week, a doctor with a flashlight
shows us where sales projections come from."
- Dogbert

On 12 Aug 2004 06:14:32 -0700,
Scott McFadden wrote:
"Jeff Morris" wrote in message ...

You have a good point. Florida leads the country in boating fatalities (over
the last 5 years), but is lagging behind in drownings. However, you make up
the difference by having the largest number of non-drowning boating fatalities,
caused by leading the way (by a huge margin) in collisions with fixed objects.

Clearly, while Florida may deserve an exemption for PFD's, they should be
required to build all bridges out of foam rubber.

I believe a realistic first step would be to prohibit the consumption
of alcoholic beverages by the operator of a power boat. (It is legal
to do so in Fla)


Just ban alchohol entirely, it worked so well last time :)
--
Jim Richardson http://www.eskimo.com/~warlock
A positive attitude may not solve all your problems,
but it will annoy enough people to make it worth the effort.

personally, don't need any more government intervention in my life

** I think we may need a 'sober' second opinion on that !

"Florida Keyz" wrote in message
...
personally, don't need any more government intervention in my life

** Stupid is as stupid says.
Most people swim in a fairly confined area where help would be at hand.
Boaters, on the other hand, could be out of sight and quite a distance away.

"JohnC" wrote in message
...

And about time too! It is a shame that gov't has to legislate 'common
sense' but what can you do?

Then certainly no-one should be allowed to swim without a pfd on!
Right? Don't be stupid.

"Jim Richardson" wrote in message
...

When were you planning on banning tobacco, fast food, and mandating
excersize?

--
I'm encouraged. Another progressive thinker has emerged from the 'grey
water' of the newsgroup.
You start the campaigh and I'll be with you.

That would make as much sense as what they're talking about...
What ****es me of is they are wasting our tax dollars holding hearings
on such stupidity.
If that became law I could legally take off my pfd, jump off the boat
for a swim, ( or would I have to be in the water when I removed it?)
then by law I would have to put my pfd back on when I got back in the
boat....stupid, stupid.

John C.


It would seem this could be eliminated as a cause of drownding by either
requiring that all boats have a enclosed head (with holding tank - of
course) or requiring that clothing wore on board not have a fly.

Matt Colie