DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Tailgate Forum Right Wingers at it again

You are at a point in your life where you can afford your socalist views.Enjoy the attention they bring you.
Some day soon you will have a wife,kids,mortage,car payments and bills you can't even imagine.You won't have the time or energy to concern yourself with such foolish beliefs.

Quote:

---

No, but a family will not live long if they cannot cool off.

---

Gee ..... wonder how our great great great great grandparents survived in the days before electric fans and electricity.

Now .... I donlt know how things work where you live .... but in Youngstown, there are free clinics. Free clinics will provide free health care to anyone who asks. A referral from a free clinic will also get you admitted to a hospital in a situation requiring hospitalization regardless of your insurance status.

So, your "right" is actually a conscience driven program already in existence ...... only the person can't show up at the hospital's door and say "operate on me" any more than a person with insurance can.

People have a right to life. They have the right, by law, to care in the event of a life threatening situation. What they should not have is the right to expect other people to pay for them.

Quote:

---

Obsolute Power does not corrput absolutely.

Cincinnatus, believe it or not, was a real person.

---

For how many generations following his death did his utopian society endure?

His best example yet of somebody being denied care was that one hospital in his area didn't accept poor or uninsured (Which I bet is not entirely true but... ) so they were sent to a different hospital... that sounds a lot more like an inconvenience than denial to me.

Only hospitals that accept no federal or state funding can decline a life or death admission. In such a case, most hospitals will at the very least stabilize the patient before sending them to a hospital receiving state/federal funding. No hospital wants to be on the news with the picture a dead person who they declined to treat haunting them for months to come.

I've wondered about this before... So some hospitals receive state funding to deal with people who have no insurance in life or death instances? Interesting.

What happens if someone needs treatment that is life saving but not immediate? For example, a cancerous tumor.

**Edited to add the rest of the article ......

Oh .... I mis-read your earlier post that I had responded to. Sorry about that. The meds combined with the procedure I had done on my back yesterday must have put my brain out to pasture.

As far as treatment goes:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergency_Medical_Treatment_and_Active_Labor_Act

The Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA)[1] is a U.S. Act of Congress passed in 1986 as part of the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act (COBRA). It requires hospitals and ambulance services to provide care to anyone needing emergency healthcare treatment regardless of citizenship, legal status or ability to pay. There are no reimbursement provisions. As a result of the act, patients needing emergency treatment can be discharged only under their own informed consent or when their condition requires transfer to a hospital better equipped to administer the treatment.

EMTALA applies to "participating hospitals", i.e., those that accept payment from the Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) under the Medicare program. However, in practical terms, EMTALA applies to virtually all hospitals in the U.S., with the exception of the Shriners Hospitals for Children, Indian Health Service hospitals, and Veterans Affairs hospitals [citation needed]. The combined payments of Medicare and Medicaid, $602 billion in 2004,[2] or roughly 44% of all medical expenditures in the U.S., make not participating in EMTALA impractical for nearly all hospitals. EMTALA's provisions apply to all patients, and not just to Medicare patients.[3][4]

The cost of emergency care required by EMTALA is not directly covered by the federal government. Because of this, the law has been criticized by some as an unfunded mandate.[5] Similarly, it has attracted controversy for its impacts on hospitals, and in particular, for its possible contributions to an emergency medical system that is "overburdened, underfunded and highly fragmented."[6] More than half of all emergency room care in the U.S. now goes uncompensated. Hospitals write off such care as charity or bad debt for tax purposes. Increasing financial pressures on hospitals in the period since EMTALA's passage have caused consolidations and closures, so the number of emergency rooms is decreasing despite increasing demand for emergency care.[7] There is also debate about the extent to which EMTALA has led to cost-shifting and higher rates for insured or paying hospital patients, thereby contributing to the high overall rate of medical inflation in the U.S.

EMTALA was passed to combat the practice of "patient dumping", i.e., refusal to treat people because of inability to pay or insufficient insurance, or transferring or discharging emergency patients on the basis of high anticipated diagnosis and treatment costs. The law applies when an individual with a medical emergency "comes to the emergency department," regardless of whether the condition is visible to others, or is simply stated by the patient with no external evidence.

The U.S. government defines an emergency department as "a specially equipped and staffed area of the hospital used a significant portion of the time for initial evaluation and treatment of outpatients for emergency medical conditions." This means, for example, that outpatient clinics not equipped to handle medical emergencies are not obligated under EMTALA and can simply refer patients to a nearby emergency department for care.[8]

An emergency medical condition is defined as "a condition manifesting itself by acute symptoms of sufficient severity (including severe pain) such that the absence of immediate medical attention could reasonably be expected to result in placing the individual's health [or the health of an unborn child] in serious jeopardy, serious impairment to bodily functions, or serious dysfunction of bodily organs." For example, a pregnant woman with an emergency condition must be treated until delivery is complete, unless a transfer under the statute is appropriate.[8]

Though patients treated under EMTALA may or may not be able to pay or have insurance or other programs pay for the associated costs, they are legally responsible for any costs incurred as a result of their care under civil law. Patients whose advance intention it is to receive medical care and fail to pay cannot be held criminally liable unless they intentionally and knowingly provide false identifying information to dodge billing.

The provisions under EMTALA apply primarily in relation to a patient's ability or likelihood to pay. They have no guidelines regarding patients with known or suspected communicable diseases, though other existing laws protect such patients from being denied treatment, while at the same time are designed to prevent the spread of the diseases.

Hospitals have three obligations under EMTALA:

1.Individuals requesting emergency care, or those for whom a representative has made a request if the patient is unable, must receive a medical screening examination to determine whether an emergency medical condition (EMC) exists. Examination and treatment cannot be delayed to inquire about methods of payment or insurance coverage, or a patient's citizenship or legal status. The hospital may only start the process of payment inquiry and billing once the patient has been stabilized to a degree that the process will not interfere with or otherwise compromise patient care.
2.The emergency room (or other better equipped units within the hospital) must treat an individual with an EMC until the condition is resolved or stabilized and the patient is able to provide self-care following discharge, or if unable, can receive needed continual care. Inpatient care provided must be at an equal level for all patients, regardless of ability to pay. Hospitals may not discharge a patient prior to stabilization if the patient's insurance is canceled or otherwise discontinues payment during course of stay.
3.If the hospital does not have the capability to treat the condition, the hospital must make an "appropriate" transfer of the patient to another hospital with such capability. This includes a long-term care or rehabilitation facilities for patients unable to provide self-care. Hospitals with specialized capabilities must accept such transfers and may not discharge a patient until the condition is resolved and the patient is able to provide self-care or is transferred to another facility.


Since its original passage, amendments to this act have been passed by U.S. Congress that either add or remove various obligations. Additionally, state and local laws in some places have imposed additional requirements on hospitals. These amendments include:

A patient is defined as "stable," therefore ending a hospital's EMTALA obligations, if:
The patient is conscious, alert, and oriented
The cause of all symptoms reported by the patient or representative, and all potentially life-threatening, limb-threatening, or organ-threatening symptoms discovered by hospital staff, has been ascertained to the best of the hospital's ability.
Any conditions that are immediately life-threatening, limb-threatening, or organ-threatening have been treated to the best of the hospital's ability to ensure the patient does not need further inpatient care.
The patient is able to care for themselves, with or without special equipment, which if needed, must be provided. The required abilities are:
Breathing
Feeding
Mobility
Dressing
Personal hygiene
Toileting
Medicating
Communication
Another competent person is available and able to meet the patient's needs following discharge.
All patients have EMTALA rights equally, regardless of age, race, religion, nationality, ethnicity, residence, citizenship, or legal status. If patient's status is found to be illegal, hospitals may not discharge a patient prior to completion of care, though law enforcement and hospital security may take necessary action to prevent a patient from escaping or harming others. Treatment may only be delayed as needed to prevent patients from harming themselves or others.
Overloaded hospitals may not discharge a patient unable to pay to make room for a patient who is able to pay or is otherwise viewed by society as a more valued citizen. If the emergency room is overloaded, patients must be treated in an order based on their determined medical needs, not their ability to pay.
Hospitals may not deny or provide substandard services to a patient who already has outstanding debt to the hospital, and may not withhold the patient's belongings, records, or other required services until the patient pays.
Hospitals and related services cannot receive a judgment against the patient in court filings made more than 36 months after the date the patient was discharged, or the last partial payment the patient made to the hospital, contractor, or agent. After that period, the patient may not be threatened with legal action if payment is not made, and may not be denied future outpatient services from the same company/agency that a patient is able to pay.
If a patient has been awarded monetary damages against the hospital or any related or affiliated services by a court of law, or has settled out of court on damages, the hospital and related/affiliated services may not withhold monies due to lack of payment, or count the money toward the bill in lieu of making payment to the patient. Voluntary consent for such an arrangement is permitted only if initiated by the patient. Hospitals may not threaten or coerce a patient into such a settlement, or mislead the patient into believing such an arrangement is required or recommended.
Patients cannot face criminal prosecution for failure to pay, even if the patient came to the hospital aware of inability to pay. Hospitals and third-party agents may not threaten patients with prosecution as a means of scaring the patient into making payment. Patient can be prosecuted under existing federal, state, or local laws for providing false name, address, or other information to avoid payment, receiving bills, or to hide fugitive status.
A hospital may not perform a credit check on a patient either before, during, or after stay. The patient cannot receive a negative credit mark for failure to pay the hospital or any related services, or any third-party agent collecting on their behalf. Such services may not threaten patient with credit reporting to scare them into paying.
Hospitals are prohibited from discriminating against or providing substandard care to those who appear impoverished or homeless, are not well-dressed or groomed, or exhibit signs of mental illness or intoxication. If the hospital fears a patient may be a threat to others, the hospital may delay care only as necessary to protect others.
Hospitals are required to sufficiently feed patients unable to pay at a level equal to those able to pay, while meeting all physician-ordered dietary restrictions.
Hospitals are not required to provide premium services to the patient not related to medical care (such as television) when failure to provide this service does not compromise patient care.
Hospitals and affiliated clinics are not required to provide continued outpatient care, drugs, or other supplies following discharge. In the event such services are recommended, but a patient is unable to pay, the hospital is required to refer the patient to a clinic or tax-funded or private program that enables the patient to pay for these services, and to which the patient has reasonable access. Hospitals must reasonably assist patients as necessary to obtain these services by providing information the patient requests.

Charlie

You're doing an admirable job of teaching pretty basic history stuff, lol....especially at staying calm despite being confronted with an incredible amount of ignorance in a lot of the questions thrown your way...now I know why Republicans are labeling Obama a Socialist or Commie....you guys need to know that looking at this "discourse" or better "phenomenon" (because it's far from rational) from Europe it's simply laughable...whoever really thinks that Obama is a Commie or Socialist is pretty much considered as brain washed as North Koreans, via Fox or sheer stupidity or both, pick your poison...you guys are already a running gag in Western Europe...just so you know)

I couldn't do this...not via internet...and NOT on a football message board

Great job Charlie

Btw: Are you in any way reading guys like Badiou, Zizek, Deleuze/Guattari? If so let me know...via PM if you like

Im throwing those out here...enjoy! (and Im not even a Zizek guy, theoretically, but he's very funny and has the onions to go public)

http://www.youtube.com/v/_GD69Cc20rw

http://www.youtube.com/v/KjEtmZZvGZA

....then there's the famous Monty Python Commie-sketch

http://www.youtube.com/v/vZ9myHhpS9s&feature=related

Quote:

---

you guys need to know that looking at this "discourse" or better "phenomenon" (because it's far from rational) from Europe it's simply laughable...whoever really thinks that Obama is a Commie or Socialist is pretty much considered as brain washed as North Koreans, via Fox or sheer stupidity or both, pick your poison...you guys are already a running gag in Western Europe...just so you know)

---

Am I supposed to care what Western Europe thinks about anything?

Hee Haw

Well, I thought it's appropriate to tell you how tea party people are viewed abroad since you guys are partly "discussing" at least your perception of Marx, who was a Western European

I think your response (but also the obvious lack of knowledge about Marx) is part of your countrie's problem, politically...this ignorance towards other countries and their politics, thinking, reasoning etc...a little less Cowboy, a little more self-reflection is long overdue, your not alone on the playing field Meshwan or should I say Braylon to get my point across?....just an advice from an unimportant Western European

Quote:

---

Well, I thought it's appropriate to tell you how tea party people are viewed abroad

---

I appreciate you telling me.. I still don't care but I appreciate you telling me.

Quote:

---

I think your response (but also the obvious lack of knowledge about Marx) is part of your countrie's problem, politically...this ignorance towards other countries and their politics, thinking, reasoning etc...

---

I quote Homer Simpson... "Just because I don't care doesn't mean I don't understand." I know who Marx is and in large part what his theory entails. I've asked a lot of questions because I'd like somebody to put into context in the year 2010 how they think it could possibly work. I don't think it can. Just because I am fighting at every turn this administrations attempts to follow Europe down the rabbit hole that they chose to go down economically, doesn't mean I don't have at least a basic understanding of it.

Quote:

---

a little less Cowboy, a little more self-reflection is long overdue, your not alone on the playing field Meshwan or should I say Braylon to get my point across?....

---

I happen to like cowboys.. and I don't think I need a whole lot of self-reflection as it is something I do regularly.. as for the Meshawn/Braylon comment.. I have no idea what you are getting at.

Quote:

---

just an advice from an unimportant Western European

---

I'm always glad to entertain other peoples ideas.

No one likes a cowboy ..... until they need him to ride to their rescue.

Well my Roman history is a bit rusty but Cincinnatus was elected dictator by the Senate as an emergency measure but stepped down soon after the crisis was averted. Hardly a good example of a benevolent dictator, seeing as he was elected by the Senate and they did retain some power... though there are dozens of examples throughout history (kings were dictators, no?)

You have honorable intentions Charlie, you see the poorer classes suffering and you wish to create an economic/political system that will give the ability to level the playing field. You continually say that not everyone is corrupted, that such a political/economic system could work...your right and wrong. Humans are unpredictable, and as such it will always fail. Stalin failed because he was human.

Let's say that in 20 years you become the President of America for life, and you can create a socialist paradise. Everythings great, everything you could of dreamed of...everyone is on equal terms, ect. But once you die, who's to say your successor won't succumb to temptations or his successor. Humans would be downfall for such system that relies on a benevolent dictator. Hell, the founder fathers NEVER imagined that Grant's administration would be so corrupt or that Roosevelt would try and pack the Supreme Court because they put checks and balances in place to ensure it didn't happen but it did.

Also, to those showing disdain to Charlie for his socialist views...what do you think you promote when you purchase anything NFL? Revenue Sharing is the largest form of socialism in the US. Our economic system is not wholly capitalistic, there are aspects of socialism in there. It balances the system well.

Meshawn/Braylon analogy was about being a selfish player (country) in a team sport (world, tackling global problems)....my point was: USA is viewed as Meshawn/Braylon even on their OWN team, read: Western Allies...that's nothing to be proud about and the rest of the world is starting to get fed up with your antics and Ego-runs...just like this this fanbase was with BE.

There's a pretty reasonable anti-americanism too, you know....for starters, check this out:

http://www.youtube.com/v/n4H_E8b-qmo

Back to topic...you guys are right....socialism probably IS a dream/utopia and will onyl exist when reason sets in....problem in the US is: only a select few can AFFORD education...the cynic in me tells me it's set up to be this way systematically to maintain exploitation.....same with privatized health care....it's a joke, the USA is the last so called "civilized" country to run it this way....it's all about priorities and distribution of wealth....this is the main fallacy of capitalism: it's NOT natural, it's MAN MADE

oh and on Europe: we have lots of our own crappy politics/ians, power abuse and bad management...no doubt, we're far from perfect....but I've met lots of american citizen over here, most being stationed here, so Military people, most of them from the poorer spectrum of your society...most of them did everything in their power to stay here and the unanimous opinion was that over here the standard of life was much higher and much safer place to live...speaking of priorities: shouldn't these 2 be high on any society's list?

Check out homeless rates and compare them...why do the US have such a high rate compared to other democracies? What is it? Does your system produce more lazy people than others? (of course not, and even if someone would try to argue that way, it would be bad, right?), is the economy worse? (it's not) or does it simply produce more poverty? maybe it is exploiting their own people more than anywhere else (compared to other democracies of course) ?

Just some facts and stuff to think about

"The U.S. Department of Labor publishes the annual Gini Coefficient with the nation's tabulated income statistics. Graph 1, shown below is derived from those data and illustrates the upward Gini trend from 1967 to 2001 as a black line. The red line is a projected continuation of that trend to the year when the U.S. Gini Coefficient will be as high as Mexico's was in year 2000. "

http://www.sustainablemiddleclass.com/Gini-Coefficient.html

Charlie, perhaps I was a bit too harsh on you...i didn't realize you were so young...

I said what said because I did get somewhat caught in the heat of the moment, and i don't really think you are dumb...i do think your intelligent, but its pointed in the wrong direction.

look my dad served in the military, he was station in Berlin in the 50's ok

my dad had many standoffs with the Soviets...my dad saw first hand exactly how that Communist Regime treated people, and was under orders to do nothing unless they crossed the wall under orders from higher commands.

I will say it was not pretty at all.

the thing we must understand Charlie is all human beings are inherently evil..every single one of them...except Jesus Christ which is a whole other debate altogether...

(after all, Jesus message was not political and was a message to embrace your brothers and love and help one another)

but please no religious debate.

the point is everytime in history a human being or a small group have gotten power they eventually can, have, and will abuse that power at the direct expense of the people under them.

The founders were under and seen some of the despot rulers that ruled Europe and wanted a govt free of such despotism. that is why our Constitution has all kinds of checks and balances to prevent one branch or small group from getting absolute power.

even though they hardly follow the Constitution anymore because if they did, 95% of all govt functions would be handled at the state level....the Constitution lays out the role of the Fed govt quite clearly:

1. promote interstate trade and international commerce and relations with other nations.
2. protect the states from foreign invaders.
3. settle disputes among states.
4. enforce private property rights.
5. coin money and regulate the value.
6. levy taxes to disperse to the states to build roads and infastructure.

those 6 things are the ONLY powers the Constitution gives the Federal govt...thats it....this nation would be much better off if we followed the constitution...we would all be in much better position...let the states at the local level do everything else the way Jefferson and Madison envision the US to be.

you can bring about faster change on the local and state level then you can on the Fed level...thats why the founders set it up that way...but we have gotten away from all that and look where we are.

states fiscally broke
fed govt fiscally broke

just a myriad of insanity.

I think your a good dude charlie, sure we have our disagreements, but i respect you for being honest with people unlike mac, your definitely no mac and i praise you for that.

I think with proper limits on power (which is up to the people to ensure the govt don't encroach on) a system of checks and balances with limits on govt and personal liberty like the Constitution is about the best form of govt your going to get.

in the system you propose would work in utopia, however, the few running the system will hoard all the intelectual, physical, and capital property for them selves and ration everyone else on a small percentage of it at the peoples expense.....people are unpredictable and not everyone does things for the benefit of all, but for the benefit of themselves.

at least in our system we can boot out the bad ones and elect good ones. its just up to the people to do so.

i get very irritated by some of our posts before this thread. Labeling entire states as racist is just one example.

When it comes to you stating your beliefs I am quite impressed. You have managed to explain yourself in a non confrontational or condescending way. I have skipped through many of the posts on here so I can't say for sure if you are sticking to your method of debate. I have seen some comments towards you that seem to be out of bounds but without full context i can't say anything definitely.

I think the billboard is stupid. Even if the three men on the billboard had the same beliefs (and they were on par with Obama's) the message is lost because of two of them being mass murderers.

Quote:

---

Back to topic...you guys are right....socialism probably IS a dream/utopia and will onyl exist when reason sets in....problem in the US is: only a select few can AFFORD education...

---

Anyone who wants an education can get one.

There are lower cost community colleges, and federal student loans for 4 year programs available to anyone with a pulse.


As a lifelong Trek fan, I would love to see a world like that .... where people can still strive to advance themselves, and put their talents to use ... and be the best they can be ....... and where everyone contributes to the betterment of mankind ....... but I have to wonder if it will ever happen.

The part holding us back is not the "power of the best and brightest" ...... it's the lack of desire on the part of far too many of our citizens, who would rather take all they can as opposed to contributing what they can.

I agree.


There are more takers than givers.....so Utopia will never be achieved as long as that standard exists.


If you are going to take something, you have to give something of equal value back in order for everybody to feel whole.

I don't think that there are more takers ......

Overall this is a very hardworking and generous society. People are very giving in the face of tragedy and disaster ...... and are willing to give even when the economy makes it difficult to do so.

I would say that probably no more than 20% of our citizens take without regard for those who give. Those 20% take so much, and demand so much more that it makes them more visible than those who do not.

I would argue the % (I think it's higher), but overall, I think you're spot on.

I think your opinion and the opinion of others around the world are irrelevant when it comes to the Tea Party, or our politics in general.

People on the left in this country tried to use it as a campaign issue. We were told that peoples of the world hated Bush. It was important to bring in Obama because he was so loved around the world. What has it got us so far? Nothing.

People might not be bitching about the US as much but there has been no real difference in what their policies towards us are.

I get a real kick out of the Western European attitudes towards the US and our backwards politics and beliefs. The thing is that when they get in trouble it is us who they call.

I think maybe they should be taking a look at some of the Eastern European countries like Poland. They still remember what it was like to live under oppression and they love my country for the good we have done for them.

One last thing.

with Canada to the north we have less to worry about then we do from the south. You were correct on that point. The thing is Canada doesn't have to worry about any of her borders. I think that was the point of it all.

Or we would have to rent from someone...and I guess that would be the government since we should all have equal dollars. That means private citizens couldn't OWN the property or building.

Hell, I'd like them to give me my Masters without me even having to go to school.

Got ya beat.

I have hair.

You could rent my basement ..... lol

Haha...thanks, I think. It's for a store, though, so...

Damn. I was looking forward to having an on site masseuse.

I woulda been the envy of the neighborhood.