Obamacare

[sgreger1]

What about all the masses of unemployed, and even homeless people? How will they be "forced" to buy health insurance?

With government subsidy money (that goes straight to the insurance companies) and if your truly poor you aren't required to buy it.


This is pretty much affecting the middle class more than anyone else, as always the poor are left out and the rich are just taxed more.

[sgreger1]

Drinking a couple of drinks before bed is probably the key. That's how Grandpa did it.

Yah that's what i've been doing. If i'm going to feel groggy the next morning anyways, I may as well get drunk to do it! But otherwise I just stay up till about 2 or 3 every night.

[snupy]

for some little bump or bruise they will have then on oxycontin for 24 months, followed by some program designed to get them off of it (ironically) and then they have them going to a chiro, an acupuncturist, then they have them on sleep meds, then on anti-nausea meds for the oxycontin etc. It's insane and Dr's get shut down on the regular because of this but the problem never goes away.

If ANY doctor were to EVER prescribe oxycontin to me, I would walk right out the door then and there. I don't mind being addicted to nicotine, but I will be damned if I would let some doctor get me hooked on oxycontin. So anything a doctor recommended AFTER oxycontin, I would never hear, because I would be LOOOOOOOONG gone.

[sgreger1]

Yah it amazes both myself and the nursing staff here how some Dr's who are looking for money seem to purposely get patients addicted to oxycontin and other narcotics, then continue to prescribe them for a year or more at a time.

I had 2 friends die from oxycontin overdose and I certainly would never take it myself. It's just heroin in a pill and is extremely addictive.

[snupy]

Yah it amazes both myself and the nursing staff here how some Dr's who are looking for money seem to purposely get patients addicted to oxycontin and other narcotics, then continue to prescribe them for a year or more at a time.

Yet none are able to understand why 'health' care costs are out of control. And we are told the best doctors are motivated by money.

I had 2 friends die from oxycontin overdose and I certainly would never take it myself. It's just heroin in a pill and is extremely addictive.

I am sorry for the loss of your friends.

[sgreger1]

Thanks man. And your right, while I believe Dr's who spend years in school deserve to make some damn good money (as any PHD should), this buddying up with the drug companies and overmedicating everyone all the time is profiteering off sickness run amok.


Sometimes I want to ask Dr's "Good lord, what DID we do before prescription meds? How COULD have humanity survived for tens of thousands of years? "



It's funny how different Dr's do things differently depending on how it profits them. In socialized medicine, as in the army, I recall that just about everything could be fixed with "800 mg ibuprofin, drink water. I mean it didn't matter what I came to sick call with, no matter what, it was always ibuprofen and drink water. This is because the Dr's didn't stand to profit by over-prescribing nonesense medication, so when you came in with a sprained ankle you weren't getting a years worth of vikodin.
They are focused on getting people back to work to keep the ranks filled and therefore practice conservative treatment (some may call this rationing). But i'll tell you what, my ass was in formation every day and if I had an owie I got to run it off for 4 miles each morning at 0500 hours. And I was fine, I got out with no medical problems and sans the addiction to painkillers and other meds that are so common in the normal medical system.

[snupy]

QUESTION:

Does this picture remind anyone here of anything they have seen in the media for say, oh, the last 12 months?



Just wondering.

[sgreger1]

QUESTION:

Does this picture remind anyone here of anything they have seen in the media for say, oh, the last 12 months?



Just wondering.

Lol, yes it does. Imagine that, Americans standing up for their opinions prior to todays generation! Amazing.


Frankly during the days of FDR etc socialism was a bigger threat than today. Obama is in the pocket of all these banks and corporations. The socialism thing is just a sham. He is just Bush. That is all.

[tom502]

He's worse than Bush, because with Bush, you knew what it was, with Obama it's a ruse, and guise, bewildering people with hope and change, and government freebies to catch the vote and charm the entitlement welfare lovers.

[snupy]

Lol, yes it does. Imagine that, Americans standing up for their opinions prior to todays generation! Amazing.

The man in the photo is Lester Maddox. The 'opinions' he protested against had to do with civil rights for black people, whom he referred to as 'communists' and 'socialists.' Sound familiar?

Maddox's refusal to adjust to changes following the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 manifested itself when he filed a lawsuit to continue his segregationist policies. Maddox said that he would close his restaurant rather than serve black people. An initial group of black demonstrators came to the restaurant but did not enter when Maddox informed them that he had a large number of black employees. In April 1964, more African-Americans attempted to enter the restaurant. Maddox confronted the group, brandishing a handgun.[1]

Governor Maddox blames the riots on a forty-year-old conspiracy supported by Americans and international sympathizers. His reference points to the ---> oft repeated charge of civil rights activist being affiliated with communism<---. The young black man from Augusta disagrees with the governor’s statements.

Remeber what Tancredo said the opening night of the first National Tea Party Convention?

"we do not have a civics, literacy test before people can vote in this country."

The idea Tancredo mentions in the above quote, has quite a long history in the racial politics of America:

As used by the states, the literacy test gained infamy as a means for denying suffrage to African-Americans.Adopted by a number of southern states, the literacy test was applied in a patently unfair manner, as it was used to disfranchise many literate blacks while allowing many illiterate whites to vote.

Are we living in the year 2010? Or is it 1950?

[tom502]

I think the need to pass a test of some type before being eligible to vote is very good idea today.

[snupy]

I think the need to pass a test of some type before being eligible to vote is very good idea today.

Good luck in tossing out the Constitution to get your wish.

[sgreger1]

Lol, yes it does. Imagine that, Americans standing up for their opinions prior to todays generation! Amazing.

The man in the photo is Lester Maddox. The 'opinions' he protested against had to do with civil rights for black people, whom he referred to as 'communists' and 'socialists.' Sound familiar?

Maddox's refusal to adjust to changes following the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 manifested itself when he filed a lawsuit to continue his segregationist policies. Maddox said that he would close his restaurant rather than serve black people. An initial group of black demonstrators came to the restaurant but did not enter when Maddox informed them that he had a large number of black employees. In April 1964, more African-Americans attempted to enter the restaurant. Maddox confronted the group, brandishing a handgun.[1]

Remeber what Tancredo said the opening night of the first National Tea Party Convention?

"we do not have a civics, literacy test before people can vote in this country."

The idea Tancredo mentions in the above quote, has quite a long history in the racial politics of America:

As used by the states, the literacy test gained infamy as a means for denying suffrage to African-Americans.Adopted by a number of southern states, the literacy test was applied in a patently unfair manner, as it was used to disfranchise many literate blacks while allowing many illiterate whites to vote.

Are we living in the year 2010? Or is it 1950?

He didn't want black people in his restaurant because he felt it was bad for business. Later the government forced everyone to allow blacks in restaurants. While it may seem crazy to us in today's world, back then the citizens didn't want blacks in their restaurant, untill a certian point where the voters thought it was time for civil rights. The system worked and that's how it is supposed to.


The literacy tests were of course biased back then, again, people didn't want blacks workign there. If we did literacy tests today I would assume it could be done in a fair manner. I mean blacks have access to the same schools we do, right? They should pass a literacy test, right? Oh wait, you mean like those firefighters who had to take a test like this, and the minorities didn't pass it, so the supreme court (Sotomayor) had to force the fire dept to promote the minorities even though they couldn't pass the test?



This is not 1950 and we are all on a level playing field. It is not fair to have rules that FORCE employers to hire a certain number of black people, just because they are black. If someone is qualified for the position, they should get it based on their qualifications, not just because they are black. If in our nation's school not enough black people are passing the tests, should we ruin it for everyone else by slowing the whole class down and passing failing students onto the next grade?



Civil rights means that everyone should be treated equally and given an equal and fair chance to earn the American dream. It does not mean that we should pass failing kids based on skin color and it does not mean we should force employers to hire people based on skin color alone.




But back to your argument: Just because at some point someone complained about socialism for a racist reason, doesn't mean that using the word socialism is forever invalid, and must always be racist. However, I don't think civics tests would be fair because every american has a right to vote, stupid or smart, black or white, if you are an american you should be able to vote.


EDIT: Okay reading back through my post I am not sure if what I am saying here may come off as racist, but if so that was not my point. My point is that the civil rights thing should be about equality, not propping up people who don't make the cut, and hiring/promoting them just because of their skin color. That is like reverse racism. Please don't take my post as racist as I did not intend it to be at all, just pointing out that the world was different in the 50's and that is why people protested the civil right movement.

[wadetheblade]

Hey Tom if you had to pass a test to vote, the majority of your party would not vote and your party would be dead.

[snupy]

He didn't want black people in his restaurant because he felt it was bad for business.

You misspelled 'because he was racist.' Don't take my word for it. Look up 'Lester Maddox' and read it for yourself. He was a racist, who called black people 'socialists' and 'communists' and refused to serve them in his restaurant due solely to the color of their skin.

Later the government forced everyone to allow blacks in restaurants.

You misspelled 'Later the government acknowledged rights clearly stated in the Constitution.'

But back to your argument: Just because at some point someone complained about socialism for a racist reason,

Why call someone a Marxist, communist or socialist, when they very clearly aren't? If the label very CLEARLY doesn't apply (which can be easily verified by checking definitions on Wikipedia) then why apply the label to the person?