Jump to content



Photo
* * * * * 1 votes

Obama Care Could Be Deadly


  • Please log in to reply
5508 replies to this topic

#4741 UncleBob

UncleBob

Posted 13 April 2012 - 02:17 PM

I'd like to say I'm surprised at what can be posted here while gone for a few days. But I'm not.

Not going to bother to reply to most of the dregs, but this one was worth responding to...

I was saying that morals/beliefs shouldn't play a role in politics, not that they don't. All laws and politics should be based on solid, objective evidence of what most benefits the greater good. Not trying to impose one set of morals or values over the other. Of course that's a utopia that will never exist....


There isn't really any universal "good" or "evil". It's determined based on society, based on their individual morals.

This is one of the major issues - some of us will freely admit that our moral compass effects our decision making process. Some folks try to pretend like they're all above that, when, really, they're not - their moral compass just points to a different (not necessarily bad, just different) direction.

An example that, I believe, most on here agree with me on (and therefore is "safe") - if we're talking about the "greater good", wouldn't it be better if all harmful substances were made illegal? Obviously, you've got your illegal narcotics, but let's say fatty foods, caffeine, tobacco, etc. It'd force people to live healthier lifestyles, giving them the potential for longer life, the need for less medical care, etc., etc.

Yet, I'm sure, most of us would disagree on this point - rabble rabble freedom of choice, etc. So which side is for the "greater good"? You being allowed to get your caffeine fix in the morning via a Mountain Dew vs. the costs of dental work from drinking soda?
"The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral, begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy, instead of diminishing evil, it multiplies it."

#4742 Msut77

Msut77

    Occam's Shank

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 13 April 2012 - 02:41 PM

People like knoell get upset when they are made fun of, yet they don't feel the need to make worthwhile comments. The obvious solution is to treat them as if they are not stupid just to make them feel better.

We can have an honest conversation but they don't even want that. For several you know, years there hasn't even been an actual argument; they are against everything but are unable to even articulate why.

Edited by Msut77, 14 April 2012 - 10:54 PM.


#4743 Knoell

Knoell

    Achievement Unlocked

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 14 April 2012 - 09:37 AM

People like knoell get upset when they are made fun of, yey they don't feel the need to make worthwhile comments. The obvious solution is to treat them as if they are not stupid just to make them feel better.

We can have an honest conversation but they don't even want that. For several you know, years there hasn't even been an actual argument; they are against everything but are unable to even articulate why.


I don't get upset, I post here for the entertainment.

Any dissenting opinion gets qualified as the above and no "conversation" takes place.

#4744 Msut77

Msut77

    Occam's Shank

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 14 April 2012 - 10:21 AM

knoell, I try not to respond to you but I will say this to you in all seriousness.

A) There are better sources entertainment out there than being an ass and annoying the living Fuck out of me. You of all people should be ashamed of whining about being taken seriously, example the quote in my signature.

B) It is not true that "any dissenting opinion" gets crapped on. In general terms if a person posts something thoughtful and/or seems to generally be unaware of the facts that post is engaged.

It gets a little hairy when people act obtuse because they don't want to admit they are wrong (and more often) define the word opinion as "what I choose to believe against all available evidence".

knoells behavior in this thread alone was sickening.

Edited by Msut77, 14 April 2012 - 09:49 PM.

wahhhhh noone helped me so they must not help anyone. - knoell

#4745 Knoell

Knoell

    Achievement Unlocked

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 15 April 2012 - 02:03 AM

knoell, I try not to respond to you but I will say this to you in all seriousness.

A) There are better sources entertainment out there than being an ass and annoying the living Fuck out of me. You of all people should be ashamed of whining about being taken seriously, example the quote in my signature.

B) It is not true that "any dissenting opinion" gets crapped on. In general terms if a person posts something thoughtful and/or seems to generally be unaware of the facts that post is engaged.

It gets a little hairy when people act obtuse because they don't want to admit they are wrong (and more often) define the word opinion as "what I choose to believe against all available evidence".

knoells behavior in this thread alone was sickening.


Your example is a "quote" of something I didn't say?

Bravo.

And no I do not get my entertainment out of the posts I make. But the posts I read such as the one above, those are the gems. :)

In addition here is another gem

I listened to the whole thing, still has "coon" plain as day. Zimmerman might have a very unique way of speaking that turns the "ld" sound into an "ns".


"what I choose to believe against all available evidence".

Indeed.

#4746 Msut77

Msut77

    Occam's Shank

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 15 April 2012 - 04:16 AM

knoell,

I am not a fortune teller but I have a feeling you are headed back to my ignore list.

Just out of curiosity are you claiming you did not say what is quoted in my signature?
wahhhhh noone helped me so they must not help anyone. - knoell

#4747 Knoell

Knoell

    Achievement Unlocked

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 15 April 2012 - 08:09 AM

knoell,

I am not a fortune teller but I have a feeling you are headed back to my ignore list.

Just out of curiosity are you claiming you did not say what is quoted in my signature?


Context is everything Msut.

Are you saying Msut that despite expert analysis of the audio, the entire recording at your disposal, you are going to say he said "coon" because you think he fits the profile of racists?

White guy (but not really) following a black guy fits the racial profile of a white racist. Fucking Amazing.......

Way to wing it based on what you are "choosing to believe despite all evidence".

Damn hypocrite, please go back to ignoring me.

#4748 Msut77

Msut77

    Occam's Shank

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 15 April 2012 - 11:49 AM

knoell,

There was no mitigating context to what you posted (the quote in my sig).

You were trolling and acting like an ass, you will always troll and act like an ass.

That doesn't really bug me, but when you start begging for people to treat you seriously and to stop being so gosh durn mean to you I will remind them to look at your disgraceful behavior in this thread.

Do you think the bill that passed will save lives, if not why?

Edited by Msut77, 15 April 2012 - 01:36 PM.

wahhhhh noone helped me so they must not help anyone. - knoell

#4749 Knoell

Knoell

    Achievement Unlocked

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 15 April 2012 - 05:08 PM

knoell,

There was no mitigating context to what you posted (the quote in my sig).

You were trolling and acting like an ass, you will always troll and act like an ass.

That doesn't really bug me, but when you start begging for people to treat you seriously and to stop being so gosh durn mean to you I will remind them to look at your disgraceful behavior in this thread.

Do you think the bill that passed will save lives, if not why?


Do you think banning salt will save lives? If not why?

How about banning driving? I mean if it saves 33,800 people's lives then why are we still driving around out of our own convenience. Why don't we have a government program in which the government safely transports us everywhere. Oh yeah Public Transportation :lol:

I am not begging either, I am simply pointing out the ridiculousness of you and your fellow forum dwellers that so smugly think you are right because you "say" so. All dissenting statistics, references, quotes, posts, etc are either considered stupid or from unreliable sources. Every Single Time.

Really? People dieing in the streets again? And what does this bill do again?

Lower costs? Nope.
Develop new medical procedures to save lives? Nope.
Force people to give money to what you yourselves called corrupt insurance companies? Yep
Force the government to give money to what you yourselves called corrupt insurance companies for people who cannot afford it? Yep.

So sure people who need insurance getting insurance will save lives, but that doesn't solve any of the underlying issues of the health care problem. It is the same solution that democrats put forward for every problem "well why doesn't the government just foot the bill, its not like we can't"

As for the context situation, if it was in context why don't you provide the actual quote.

#4750 dohdough

dohdough

    Sum Dum Guy

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 15 April 2012 - 06:30 PM

Do you think banning salt will save lives? If not why?

Salt is actually in almost everything we eat. No one is trying to undo thousands of years of culinary history or anything close to pushing the limits of absurdity as you and bob do.

How about banning driving? I mean if it saves 33,800 people's lives then why are we still driving around out of our own convenience. Why don't we have a government program in which the government safely transports us everywhere. Oh yeah Public Transportation :lol:

The way our cities and suburbs were designed, banning driving is literally an impossibility as most people will die. Driving has become less a luxury and more a necessity.

I shouldn't need to highlight the enormous benefits of public transportation, but needless to say, there are huge attacks on it everywhere and most of the attacks aren't coming from "smug forum dwellers."

I am not begging either, I am simply pointing out the ridiculousness of you and your fellow forum dwellers that so smugly think you are right because you "say" so. All dissenting statistics, references, quotes, posts, etc are either considered stupid or from unreliable sources. Every Single Time.

Do you know why think tanks were created? It's because facts have a liberal bias. Dissent is fine, but not when it's born out of ignorance. You're conflating any dissent as being worthy of taken seriously. Well I have a hint for you: it isn't.

Really? People dieing in the streets again? And what does this bill do again?


Fewer people will be dying on the streets. This is quantifiable.

Lower costs? Nope.
Develop new medical procedures to save lives? Nope.
Force people to give money to what you yourselves called corrupt insurance companies? Yep
Force the government to give money to what you yourselves called corrupt insurance companies for people who cannot afford it? Yep.

Most of this will be addressed in the next part, but those new medical procedures you're talking about? They're funded by public dollars at teaching hospitals.

So sure people who need insurance getting insurance will save lives, but that doesn't solve any of the underlying issues of the health care problem. It is the same solution that democrats put forward for every problem "well why doesn't the government just foot the bill, its not like we can't"

Shit costs money and the Republicans were trolling like motherfuckers while whipping up people about socialism, cummunism, and death panels. No good solutions you say? Well no shit. What do you expect when people are complaining about keeping government out of medicare and pushing a 20 year old Republican healthcare plan with cues from the Heritage Foundation?

This particular part isn't directed solely at you, but I'm reminded of a conversation two nights ago(an attempted one anyways 'cause I was drunk and he was talking about Ron Paul, income inequality, Bill Gates myth, 1%-.01%, etc) I was having with a friend about him being pissed at a woman that had 2 carts of food with 4 bags of doritos that rang up to about $8. Which is really intesting because he started off talking about being at the market and I was hoping he wasn't going to bust out the "welfare queen" trope, MAH TAXES, and how he was more entitled(lolz) to cheaper gorceries. Me and another friend had to explain how low income needs to be to qualify for assistance, the low amounts that assistance usually is, the lifestyle differences between him(I'm sure he makes close to $200k a year) and a person on assistance that probably makes less than $50k the entire household. He said I was squabbling about technicalites when talking about scale.

All this is coming from a guy whose parents are so loaded that they're Taiwanese living in Brazil that had/have servants living in a 3000 sq ft luxury condo, sent him to an international school, paid for all of his college expenses which total to about $500k in today's money, take 6 month long furloughs, racked up $3 million in healthcare due to having lukemia while paying $2k a month for continuing treatment, yet he doesn't think he's privileged because Romney makes $20 million a year and me and my family would be literally destitute if I had lukemia.

On the otherhand, he thinks that charitable deductions are bullshit and should be made after all taxes are paid because that's money that should be going to schools, roads, hospitals, etc. I was too drunk to tell him that those things are the exact opposite of what Paul stands for, so I can't hate on my friend too much.:rofl:

#4751 Msut77

Msut77

    Occam's Shank

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 15 April 2012 - 06:50 PM

He admitted that it will save lives. That is enough for me.

#4752 IRHari

IRHari

Posted 15 April 2012 - 10:32 PM

Do you think banning salt will save lives? If not why?

How about banning driving? I mean if it saves 33,800 people's lives then why are we still driving around out of our own convenience. Why don't we have a government program in which the government safely transports us everywhere. Oh yeah Public Transportation :lol:

I am not begging either, I am simply pointing out the ridiculousness of you and your fellow forum dwellers that so smugly think you are right because you "say" so. All dissenting statistics, references, quotes, posts, etc are either considered stupid or from unreliable sources. Every Single Time.

Really? People dieing in the streets again? And what does this bill do again?

Lower costs? Nope.
Develop new medical procedures to save lives? Nope.
Force people to give money to what you yourselves called corrupt insurance companies? Yep
Force the government to give money to what you yourselves called corrupt insurance companies for people who cannot afford it? Yep.

So sure people who need insurance getting insurance will save lives, but that doesn't solve any of the underlying issues of the health care problem. It is the same solution that democrats put forward for every problem "well why doesn't the government just foot the bill, its not like we can't"

As for the context situation, if it was in context why don't you provide the actual quote.


If you're upset the bill doesn't do more I agree with you.

If you're upset about giving poor people subsidies to buy insurance then I don't.

#4753 Knoell

Knoell

    Achievement Unlocked

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 15 April 2012 - 10:44 PM

http://cityroom.blog...s-the-salt-ban/

#4754 Knoell

Knoell

    Achievement Unlocked

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 15 April 2012 - 10:46 PM

He admitted that it will save lives. That is enough for me.


Of course it is.

#4755 UncleBob

UncleBob

Posted 16 April 2012 - 04:31 AM

Of course it is.


While there is a good chance the new laws have the potential to save more lives, there are multiple outliers that will be hard to predict.

For example, if a significantly larger portion of the population doesn't have to worry about paying per-visit for their health care, then they may be more likely to seek health care at times when they normally would forgo it. On the surface, this sounds like a good idea (you don't know if those sniffles might be a sign of something worse), but it might really suck if you have to go to the ER for something super-serious, but you're in line behind a bunch of folks who went there with minor issues that they would normally wait for their family doctor or just take care of at home.

ER wait times are already far above the recommended wait, by more than double in some cases.

"Reform" that addresses the "insurance" part of the equation without working towards real changes in the way we think about health care isn't going to do a lot of good.
"The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral, begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy, instead of diminishing evil, it multiplies it."

#4756 Knoell

Knoell

    Achievement Unlocked

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 16 April 2012 - 07:14 AM

Bloomberg Strikes Again: NYC Bans Food Donations To The Homeless

http://newyork.cbslo...o-the-homeless/


Nice. Government knows best. Amiright?

#4757 IRHari

IRHari

Posted 16 April 2012 - 10:41 AM

While there is a good chance the new laws have the potential to save more lives, there are multiple outliers that will be hard to predict.

For example, if a significantly larger portion of the population doesn't have to worry about paying per-visit for their health care, then they may be more likely to seek health care at times when they normally would forgo it. On the surface, this sounds like a good idea (you don't know if those sniffles might be a sign of something worse), but it might really suck if you have to go to the ER for something super-serious, but you're in line behind a bunch of folks who went there with minor issues that they would normally wait for their family doctor or just take care of at home.

ER wait times are already far above the recommended wait, by more than double in some cases.

"Reform" that addresses the "insurance" part of the equation without working towards real changes in the way we think about health care isn't going to do a lot of good.


But if more people have insurance there should be less people using the ER when something minor happens.

#4758 UncleBob

UncleBob

Posted 16 April 2012 - 11:13 AM

Ideally, yes.
But if you're not concerned about the cost, do you wait and try to make an appointment in a time frame that's convenient with your family physician/local clinic, or just pop in to the ER whenever, where ever?
"The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral, begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy, instead of diminishing evil, it multiplies it."

#4759 Msut77

Msut77

    Occam's Shank

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 16 April 2012 - 11:38 AM

But if more people have insurance there should be less people using the ER when something minor happens.


Ounce of prevention pound of cure.

#4760 Clak

Clak

    Made of star stuff.

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 16 April 2012 - 12:54 PM

Bloomberg Strikes Again: NYC Bans Food Donations To The Homeless

http://newyork.cbslo...o-the-homeless/

It's the right of that city and/or state to pass whatever laws they choose. Now if the federal government tried to do that.....oh boy!:roll::lol:
Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that. -George Carlin

“Never argue with stupid people, they will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience.” -Mark Twain

“When a great genius appears in the world you may know him by this sign; that the dunces are all in confederacy against him." -Jonathon Swift

#4761 UncleBob

UncleBob

Posted 16 April 2012 - 01:16 PM

It's the right of that city and/or state to pass whatever laws they choose. Now if the federal government tried to do that.....oh boy!:roll::lol:


It's for the greater good. By watching the quality of food the homeless eat, they'll be able to make sure the homeless are getting the proper foods to suit their lifestyle. This will give them healthier livestyles and could help save lives. If you're against saving lives, then you're a bad man. You just want the homeless to die, don't you?

In all seriousness, at least as a local law, citizens can appeal to a higher authority to have it overturned. Your options are VERY limited in the case of a federal law. Worst case, moving to a different city is a heck of a lot easier than moving to a different country.
"The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral, begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy, instead of diminishing evil, it multiplies it."

#4762 camoor

camoor

    Jams on foot fires

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 16 April 2012 - 01:50 PM

I don't get upset, I post here for the entertainment.

Any dissenting opinion gets qualified as the above and no "conversation" takes place.


You're not entertainment - you are a fucking joke.

You think Bloomberg cares about homeless people.

L M F A O

Just how stupid are you?

This is a political ploy, and a pretty clever one at that. Bloomberg gets to slash aid to the homeless (and if the bums can't eat they'll leave NYC). Meanwhile Bloomberg applies the excessive salt ban in a ridiculous and totalitarian manner, giving the knee-jerk anti-gubmint folks an excuse to vent (ultimately weakening support for food regulation)

Don't worry - you don't want food safety and you're going to get it. Hep-c tainted fast food, chemically concocted "eggs", massive salmonella outbreaks, it's all going to keep rolling out while the corporate cash register cha-chings in the background.

#4763 Clak

Clak

    Made of star stuff.

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 16 April 2012 - 04:08 PM

Woah woah there camoor, this isn't the federal government, this is a city government, no reason for them to get up in arms. Just so long as it isn't the fed, it's ok, no problem. Phew, we dodged that bullet.
Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that. -George Carlin

“Never argue with stupid people, they will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience.” -Mark Twain

“When a great genius appears in the world you may know him by this sign; that the dunces are all in confederacy against him." -Jonathon Swift

#4764 Knoell

Knoell

    Achievement Unlocked

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 16 April 2012 - 04:16 PM

You're not entertainment - you are a fucking joke.

You think Bloomberg cares about homeless people.

L M F A O

Just how stupid are you?

This is a political ploy, and a pretty clever one at that. Bloomberg gets to slash aid to the homeless (and if the bums can't eat they'll leave NYC). Meanwhile Bloomberg applies the excessive salt ban in a ridiculous and totalitarian manner, giving the knee-jerk anti-gubmint folks an excuse to vent (ultimately weakening support for food regulation)

Don't worry - you don't want food safety and you're going to get it. Hep-c tainted fast food, chemically concocted "eggs", massive salmonella outbreaks, it's all going to keep rolling out while the corporate cash register cha-chings in the background.


This post is riddled with proof that you often have no idea what you are talking about.

#4765 camoor

camoor

    Jams on foot fires

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 16 April 2012 - 05:52 PM

This post is riddled with proof that you often have no idea what you are talking about.


Knoell, you think Bloomberg cares about the poor. You are an epic fool.

#4766 Knoell

Knoell

    Achievement Unlocked

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 16 April 2012 - 06:12 PM

Knoell, you think Bloomberg cares about the poor. You are an epic fool.


......I don't even know what the Fuck you are talking about man. I was never one to say that any of these sin or excise tax laws are created to "care" for anyone but that states budget.

I constantly make fun of you guys for actually believing that these laws are there to help.

#4767 camoor

camoor

    Jams on foot fires

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 16 April 2012 - 06:19 PM

......I don't even know what the Fuck you are talking about man. I was never one to say that any of these sin or excise tax laws are created to "care" for anyone but that states budget.

I constantly make fun of you guys for actually believing that these laws are there to help.


How does paying for bagel police care for the budget? It's a useless waste of taxpayer dollars.

#4768 joeboosauce

joeboosauce

    Snarf! Get in the...

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 16 April 2012 - 08:32 PM

I always see the title of this thread and I think how asinine it sounds. Is it nu-cu-ler deadly? Anyway, here's a legit criticism rather than the paranoid stupidity from the Repukes.

Nurses Say Senate Bill Entrenches Chokehold of Insurance Giants
http://www.thenation...nsurance-giants

John Nichols on December 21, 2009 - 8:14 PM ET
Want to know what's wrong -- really wrong -- with the health-care "reform" bill being pushed through the Senate by Majority Leader Harry Reid?
Ask a nurse.
"It is tragic to see the promise from Washington this year for genuine, comprehensive reform ground down to a seriously flawed bill that could actually exacerbate the health-care crisis and financial insecurity for American families, and that cedes far too much additional power to the tyranny of a callous insurance industry," says National Nurses Union co-president Karen Higgins, RN.
"Sadly," adds Higgins, "we have ended up with legislation that fails to meet the test of true health-care reform, guaranteeing high quality, cost effective care for all Americans, and instead are further locking into place a system that entrenches the choke-hold of the profit-making insurance giants on our health. If this bill passes, the industry will become more powerful and could be beyond the reach of reform for generations."
The 150,000-member NNU, the largest union and professional organization of registered nurses in the U.S., condemned Reid's bill -- which is expected to gain Senate approval this week -- as a deeply flawed measure that grants too much power to the nation's largest private and for-profit insurers.
Specifically, the union that takes in the powerful California Nurses Association, cited 10 fundamental flaws in the Senate bill:



1. The individual mandate forcing all those without coverage to buy private insurance, with insufficient cost controls on skyrocketing premiums and other insurance costs.

2. No challenge to insurance company monopolies, especially in the top 94 metropolitan areas where one or two companies dominate, severely limiting choice and competition.
3. An affordability mirage. Congressional Budget Office estimates say a family of four with a household income of $54,000 would be expected to pay 17 percent of their income, $9,000, on healthcare exposing too many families to grave financial risk.
4. The excise tax on comprehensive insurance plans which will encourage employers to reduce benefits, shift more costs to employees, promote proliferation of high-deductible plans, and lead to more self-rationing of care and medical bankruptcies, especially as more plans are subject to the tax every year due to the lack of adequate price controls. A Towers-Perrin survey in September found 30 percent of employers said they would reduce employment if their health costs go up, 86 percent said they'd pass the higher costs to their employees.
5. Major loopholes in the insurance reforms that promise bans on exclusion for pre-existing conditions, and no cancellations for sickness. The loopholes include:
· Provisions permitting insurers and companies to more than double charges to employees who fail "wellness" programs because they have diabetes, high blood pressure, high cholesterol readings, or other medical conditions.
· Insurers are permitted to sell policies "across state lines", exempting patient protections passed in other states. Insurers will thus set up in the least regulated states in a race to the bottom threatening public protections won by consumers in various states.
· Insurers can charge four times more based on age plus more for certain conditions, and continue to use marketing techniques to cherry-pick healthier, less costly enrollees.
· Insurers may continue to rescind policies for "fraud or intentional misrepresentation" – the main pretext insurance companies now use to cancel coverage.
6. Minimal oversight on insurance denials of care; a report by the California Nurses Association/NNOC in September found that six of California's largest insurers have rejected more than one-fifth of all claims since 2002.
7. Inadequate limits on drug prices, especially after Senate rejection of an amendment, to protect a White House deal with pharmaceutical giants, allowing pharmacies and wholesalers to import lower-cost drugs.
8. New burdens for our public safety net. With a shortage of primary care physicians and a continuing fiscal crisis at the state and local level, public hospitals and clinics will be a dumping ground for those the private system doesn't want.
9. Reduced reproductive rights for women.
10. No single standard of care. Our multi-tiered system remains with access to care still determined by ability to pay. Nothing changes in basic structure of the system; healthcare remains a privilege, not a right.
In fairness to Reid and his fellow Senate Democrats, most of the flaws in their bill are also present in the House bill. And that's the really depressing part.
While members of the Obama administration and key senators claim that the legislation should be enacted because it seeks to expand coverage, places new regulations on insurers and might be improved in the House-Senate conference committee, NNU co-president Deborah Burger, RN, offers a more realistic diagnosis:
"Those wishful statements ignore the reality that much of the expanded coverage is based on forced purchase of private insurance without effective controls on industry pricing practices or real competition and gaping loopholes in the insurance reforms."



The Nation: Nurses Knock Health Care Reform Bill
http://www.npr.org/t...oryId=121801022
Posted Image

"The nationalist not only does not disapprove of atrocities committed by his own side, but he has a remarkable capacity for not even hearing about them." - George Orwell

#4769 camoor

camoor

    Jams on foot fires

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 16 April 2012 - 08:54 PM

You think that cutting off food donations to the homeless at city shelters is clever? Please explain why this is so clever?

You think that banning salt is a ploy to stop all food regulations? Mel Gibson is that you?


I thought Knoell said sin tax not donations of food to the homeless or a salt ban.

What point are you trying to make because right now you are all over the place.

I posted it on Knoell's link because it is just as ridiculous as a salt ban.


Ye gods you may be duller then Knoell.

Obviously banning food to the homeless is not a bright move if your goal is to help the homeless.

Bloomberg doesn't about the health of the homeless. He wants them out of the city.

Obviously you can get more homeless to leave NYC by cutting off food donations. If they can't eat, they won't want to stay.

#4770 IRHari

IRHari

Posted 16 April 2012 - 11:06 PM

Ideally, yes.
But if you're not concerned about the cost, do you wait and try to make an appointment in a time frame that's convenient with your family physician/local clinic, or just pop in to the ER whenever, where ever?


They still have to pay some kind of co-pay.

And are there studies showing that if people start getting subsidized insurance that they previously didn't have, they continue to go to the ER for minor things like they did before?
"People the world over have always been more impressed by the power of our example than by the example of our power." -Bill Clinton