CA & hospital charge for "medical screening exam"

[rmet4nzkx]

Get REAL, hijacking. Oh the drama! You jumped in and responded MY post. Since you forgot and NEVER gave any legal advice, AND since you ask.

Look at yourself in the rearveiw mirror. I promise you'll see a dangerous driver. Cell phones....less than 6 hours of sleep...eating while driving....distracted drivers cause over 20 percent of all accidents. Alcohol accounts for 6 percent. OOPS OH...is that hijacking your cause?

Before someone else calls another person a danger to the roadways, think about the FACTS. The facts are lacking here while others lecture thier moral views.

Who kills more people? Sober drivers. Those people that have been killed by those sober poeple...forgotten...the "less victim" people.

Don't bother responding. ;-)

What an idiot

 

[fagettaboutit]

What an idiot

Why would you label me an "idiot" from what I stated? What part of roadway danger don't you want to understand? Oh you want to believe because you don't drink, or perhaps you're a teetotaler, you're not capable of being a danger. Over 80 percent of all fatalities involve a SOBER driver. Only an idiot wouldn't know that.

Again, what are you going tell those close to you that claim they're "exhausted", yet they drive? How about those people who continue to use their cell phone while driving? Don't you realize they're a danger to the roadway?

If you don't understand ALL dangerous driving patterns, you're an idiot.

 

[rmet4nzkx]

Why would you label me an "idiot" from what I stated? What part of roadway danger don't you want to understand? Oh you want to believe because you don't drink, or perhaps you're a teetotaler, you're not capable of being a danger. Over 80 percent of all fatalities involve a SOBER driver. Only an idiot wouldn't know that.

Again, what are you going tell those close to you that claim they're "exhausted", yet they drive? How about those people who continue to use their cell phone while driving? Don't you realize they're a danger to the roadway?

If you don't understand ALL dangerous driving patterns, you're an idiot.

You are an idiot, nothing has changed.
This thread that you hijacked, was about the validity of OP being charged for a blood test at the hospital, a blood test they could have avoided by taking the field sobriety test. The answer was simple, yes they owe for the test.
Then you hijack the thread for your continued agenda, justifying the right to drink and drive because other people die from other causes.
I'm not advocating anyone drink and drive, impaired, that is not the point and your logic biased and faulty, THAT is why you are an idiot.

 

[seniorjudge]

...Over 80 percent of all fatalities involve a SOBER driver. Only an idiot wouldn't know that....

Please cite a reference substantiating this claim.

 

[rmet4nzkx]

Originally Posted by fagettaboutit
...Over 80 percent of all fatalities involve a SOBER driver. Only an idiot wouldn't know that....
Please cite a reference substantiating this claim.

Like I said, fagettaboutit uses faulty logic.
Originally Posted by fagettaboutit
...Over 80 percent of all fatalities involve a SOBER driver.
Any time a person uses an exclusive term such as all, nothing and/or always leaves such a statement open to attack, for is such seldom possible, statically speaking. approx 77% of all fatalities involve COD other than caused by motor vehicles therefore it is statistically impossible for 80% of all fatalities to involve sober drivers.
Case closed, Fagettaboutit is proven an idiot by his own words.

http://www.disastercenter.com/cdc/ http://www.disastercenter.com/cdc/1motorac.html

 

[fagettaboutit]

Then you hijack the thread for your continued agenda, justifying the right to drink and drive because other people die from other causes

Please show me where I wrote it was okay to drink and drive? My point, which you ignored, was if you're going to lecture someone on being a dangerous driver, look in the mirror. Dangerous driving isn't only about DUI. The fact you keep calling me an idiot shows you can't comprehend you and your non-drinking buddies are just as capable of being a danger as drinking drivers.

Stop being so ignorant

 

[seniorjudge]

...Dangerous driving isn't only about DUI....

I couldn't agree more.

Now, please provide me with a reference for your statement: "...Over 80 percent of all fatalities involve a SOBER driver."

 

[fagettaboutit]

Please cite a reference substantiating this claim.

First, you need to understand what the term "alcohol-related" really means.

"Alcohol-related" does NOT mean alcohol was the cause of a fatality. The NHTSA touts 41% of all fatalities were "alcohol-related". What they don't state is that includes crashes where all the drivers were sober. Anytime there's a person with alcohol in their system killed in a crash, it's considered "alcohol-related." So even a crash involving two designated drivers become "alcohol-related."

Sober driver kills drunk passenger = "alcohol-related"; Sober driver kills drunk pedestrain = "alcohol-related".

You're more than welcome to read how the NHTSA admits Misinterpretation of Alcohol-Related Traffic Fatality Statistics by some Data Users HERE I also suggest you write them yourself and question their data.

Now, you would like proof of my 80% claim. I suggest you look at the following reports. The data was obtained from FARS - the same source where the NHTSA gets their information. It shows every "alcohol-related" fatal crash in 2001 by state. You'll see where the NHSTA claimed it was "alcohol-related" yet the drivers were either not tested or there were no results.

Here's the report for Alabama: Alabama For the rest of the states, just change the name of the state in the URL.

So how many accidents involved alcohol and how many don't? Well the NHTSA reports that 6% of all crashes involve alcohol however 20% - 30% involve a distracted driver.

Four times more people are killed by a sober driver. Those are the facts. You either believe them or choose to ignore them. If you're so confident that the NHSTA's data is correct, I suggest you prove it. You can even get $20,000 for doing so. click here for more information. It's been over a year and still no one has been able to prove the data is correct.

 

[rmet4nzkx]

Please show me where I wrote it was okay to drink and drive?
This is another example of your faulty use of logic. A basic law of logic is as follows: If a=b & b=c, then a=c, your justification of driving under the influence of alcohol/substances implies that it is ok to drink and drive becasue other actions also cause injury, however we are dealing with a DUI situation and a billing issue here, not other actions which are covered by other laws, yes, people may be cited under other laws for other forms of impairment, but that in not the question at hand.

My point, which you ignored, was if you're going to lecture someone on being a dangerous driver,
Wrong, I didn't lecture anyone, that was Jetx! Oh you are such an idiot, my patience is wearing thin!
12-11-2004, 03:32 PM JETX

Quote:
Originally Posted by gachnar
Does this sound correct or am I being further mistreated by the system?
Sounds correct to me.
Quote:
BTW, the DA later dropped the charges against me because my BAC was too low.
And of course, that does NOT mean you weren't driving impaired and a danger to others, only that you didn't meet the criminal threshold of DUI.

#3
12-14-2004, 08:54 AM
fagettaboutit

Quote:
And of course, that does NOT mean you weren't driving impaired and a danger to others, only that you didn't meet the criminal threshold of DUI.

And of course I'm going to assume you tell people who call you from their cell phone while driving the same thing, they're a danger to others. All those sleep-deprived mommies and daddies, do you tell them what a danger they are to others? If your quest is to make the roads safer, don't forget to point out to your non-drinking friends and family what a danger their lack of sleep and cell phone use is to others. That is, if you're truly interested in roadway safety.
fagettaboutit
#4
12-14-2004, 09:05 AM rmet4nzkx

Quote:
Originally Posted by fagettaboutit
And of course I'm going to assume you tell people who call you from their cell phone while driving the same thing, they're a danger to others. All those sleep-deprived mommies and daddies, do you tell them what a danger they are to others? If your quest is to make the roads safer, don't forget to point out to your non-drinking friends and family what a danger their lack of sleep and cell phone use is to others. That is, if you're truly interested in roadway safety.

Your post lacks relevance as usual. OP refused field testing most likely because they feared they would fail and so requested the blood test to avoid a default judgement and for which they are required to pay except for the part paid for by the PD. Payment is dependent upon their request for the service, not the results of the test nor the outcome of the charges. Would they not be responsible for a lab test for pregnancy if it was negative or if they subsequently lost the baby?

Op's quesiton has nothing to do with anything else you refered to regarding impairment. In fact, with your congnitive problems, you are always driving impaired, even if you are a passenger"

Dangerous driving isn't only about DUI.
That is not the point of the thread
The fact you keep calling me an idiot shows you can't comprehend you and your non-drinking buddies are just as capable of being a danger as drinking drivers.

No, the fact that you are an idiot is proved each and every time you post on this forum, because your posts never address the question at hand but only your personal agenda to justify drunk driving. If they could pull your license for being an idiot, yours would be pulled forever!

Happy holidays

 

[seniorjudge]

It's been over a year and still no one has been able to prove the data is correct.

Are you saying the government is lying? Oh, my...I need to put something cool on my forehead and lie down in a dark room for a while....

 

[fagettaboutit]

My point, which you ignored, was if you're going to lecture someone on being a dangerous driver,
Wrong, I didn't lecture anyone, that was Jetx! Oh you are such an idiot, my patience is wearing thin!
12-11-2004, 03:32 PM JETX

That's right, my response was to Jetx. Why did you even bother to respond to my post to Jetx? If you didn't respond to a post not addressed to you, there would be no, as you call it, "hijacking."

Happy holidays to you too.

 

[rmet4nzkx]

Now, you would like proof of my 80% claim. I suggest you look at the following reports.

None of this addresses your faulty logic nor your claim that:...Over 80 percent of all fatalities involve a SOBER driver. Please answer the question, you cannot using your logic and statistics.

 

[fagettaboutit]

Are you saying the government is lying? Oh, my...I need to put something cool on my forehead and lie down in a dark room for a while....

No, that's your words. But you asked for a reference, I gave you several.

 

[fagettaboutit]

None of this addresses your faulty logic nor your claim that:...Over 80 percent of all fatalities involve a SOBER driver. Please answer the question, you cannot using your logic and statistics.

Apparently you didn't read all the information. It takes more than 10 minutes to do so. Yes, less than 20% of all fatalities involve DUI. Is that to complicated of a statement for you to understand? Maybe this statement will be easier to understand: More people are killed by sober drivers.

 

[rmet4nzkx]

That's right, my response was to Jetx. Why did you even bother to respond to my post to Jetx? If you didn't respond to a post not addressed to you, there would be no, as you call it, "hijacking."

Happy holidays to you too.

I did not hijack the thread, I pointed out that you did, you did not respond to the question, you continued your own agenda, that is hijacking.
You have repeatedly accused me of a specific phrase, falsely attributing it to me when I did not say that, Your brain is so scrambled from what ever your are on, what is your gripe anyway? Start your own thread