We pay for a lot of socialism around the world

[Jerk]

What do you think would happen to Israel's socialist system if we cut off their aid?

How about Canada? They have no military. They don't need one with us next door.

We pay half the UN's bill, and they do more to spread Marxism around the world than anybody.

And what if Europe was 'on their own' and had to prepare for the big bad Russian invasion, just in case? Putin is kind of a nutjob, you know.

Just a thought....after 08 when we go totally socialist, we're not going to have the money to support all of the others!

[Hatfield]

first off we aren't going "totally socialist"

secondly, it is nice to see you realize who is going to win in 08;)

[royalfan5]

The rest of the world also does a lot to enable our way of life through widespread use of the dollars and financing the United States governmental and consumer deficit spending. It's a two way street. The United States may be able to act alone militarily, but not economically. That may become much more evident as the current credit crunch grows.

[bluedogok]

How about Canada? They have no military. They don't need one with us next door.
Canada does have its own military and has forces deployed in Afghanistan.

National Defence and the Canadian Forces (http://www.forces.gc.ca/site/home_e.asp)


Canadian Forces personnel belong to air, land, sea and special operations components.

There are approximately:

* 62,000 Regular Force members; and
* 25,000 Reserve Force members, including 4,000 Canadian Rangers.

[SoonerProphet]

some may argue that our own state capitalism along the lines of corporatism isn't that far off the socialist family tree. quite a few leftists fail to realize this when arguing against the evils of the free market.

[Harry Beanbag]

http://chuckfloyd.com/images/taxes.jpg

[85Sooner]

first off we aren't going "totally socialist"

secondly, it is nice to see you realize who is going to win in 08;)


I'll put money on the pubz to win and if they don't and we get hillary hussein obama we WILL be on our way to socialism. read the signiture. Thats the B I itch in her own words.

[SoonerProphet]

yeah, cause those "big government conservatives" are so frugal with tax dollars.

[OCUDad]

Don't we borrow money from China to pay for world socialism? It ain't our money, so don't worry about it.

[85Sooner]

yeah, cause those "big government conservatives" are so frugal with tax dollars.


I believe the dems will hold onto the house unless a bunch of fiscally conservative reps get together and pledge to squalsh all the social spending.

[soonerscuba]

Neither Clinton or Obama is a Socialist. Just because you want something to be true, doesn't make it so. You know how stupid people sound when they say Bush is a Fascist? It goes both ways.

[Tear Down This Wall]

Neither Clinton or Obama is a Socialist.

No, they just support programs to take money away from people who work and give it to people who don't.

Hillary, June 28, 2004: "We're going to have to take things away from you on behalf of the common good."

Obama has a universal health care plan he's running around talking about. That is, everyone is forced to pay into and use the same system. Very soviet. In the alternative, he wants to tax small business who don't provide health care.

They're socialists.

No, they're not as brave as the Bernie Sanders guy in Vermont who goes ahead and admits he's socialist. They're more the cowardly, Ron Paul-type. They choose one of the two parties to run with so they can help hide their true intentions from the mass of idiots who vote.

[soonerscuba]

No, they just support programs to take money away from people who work and give it to people who don't.

Hillary, June 28, 2004: "We're going to have to take things away from you on behalf of the common good."

Obama has a universal health care plan he's running around talking about. That is, everyone is forced to pay into and use the same system. Very soviet. In the alternative, he wants to tax small business who don't provide health care.

They're socialists.

No, they're not as brave as the Bernie Sanders guy in Vermont who goes ahead and admits he's socialist. They're more the cowardly, Ron Paul-type. They choose one of the two parties to run with so they can help hide their true intentions from the mass of idiots who vote.

Okie-dokie. Politicians pretend to be something they're not? Holy ****, what a breakthrough. W, the Yale and Harvard educated son of a former president ran as "an outsider", "cowboy", and "business man". Your definition of socialism is a bastardization, that you have formed in your own mind to make yourself believe that others fit that mold, like I said, just because you have a few soundbites and a pre-existing dislike of Democrats, doesn't make them socialists.

And you obviously know nothing about Obama's health plan. I don't like it, but I'm not going to say he's a socialist because of it.

For the record, you're not forced into it, it's for the uninsured, businesses pay a higher amount into their employees health plans, and small businesses are exempt (there is a dollar threshold). But by all means, continue to believe what you've read on NewsMax.

[Tear Down This Wall]

I don't know what NewsMax is. However, straight from barakobama.com:

http://www.barackobama.com/issues/healthcare/

"Making health insurance universal...."

"Barack Obama believes that every American has the right to affordable, comprehensive
and portable health coverage."

"The Obama plan will guarantee coverage for every American...."

"Obama will make available a new national health plan...."

"the Obama plan will make available a National Health Insurance Exchange to help individuals who wish to purchase a private insurance plan." (Duh, we already have this...it's called the health insurance marketplace. Only under Obama, the government will try to administer it instead of the free market. Stupid. Socialist.)

"Insurers would have to issue every applicant a policy, and charge fair and stable premiums that will not depend upon health status." (That is, you can have private insurance, but only if they follow Obama's rules, which make underwriting impossible.)

"Employers that do not offer meaningful coverage or make a meaningful contribution to the cost of quality health coverage for their employees will be required to contribute a percentage of payroll toward the costs of the national plan." (Surprise, surprise...there's no definition of "meaningful." I guess it was just be whatever Obama says is meaningful. Fidel Castro love this kind of power.)

"The Obama plan is a national one that builds on these efforts, and it will not replace what states are doing. Indeed, states can continue to experiment, provided they meet the minimum standards of the national plan. (Hooray, as long as the states do what Obama says, they can do what they want. The Soviets had it the same way with Stalin & Co.)

"Reforming medical malpractice while preserving patient rights. Increasing medical malpractice insurance rates are making it harder for doctors to practice medicine and raising the costs of health care for everyone37. Barack Obama will strengthen antitrust laws to prevent insurers from overcharging physicians for their malpractice insurance. Obama will also promote new models for addressing physician errors that improve patient safety, strengthen the doctor-patient relationship, and reduce the need for malpractice suits." (Mysteriously, nothing in the plan to contain plaintiff attorneys.)

Socialist.

[mdklatt]

Just because you want something to be true, doesn't make it so.


But they have sound bites. SOUND BITES!!

:twinkies:

[soonerscuba]

I don't know what NewsMax is. However, straight from barakobama.com:

http://www.barackobama.com/issues/healthcare/

"Making health insurance universal...."

"

Wow. That is quite a glossing, you do realize that universal doesn't mean government provided, right?

[mdklatt]

I'll put money on the pubz to win and if they don't and we get hillary hussein obama we WILL be on our way to socialism. read the signiture. Thats the B I itch in her own words.


:les: LOVE IT OR LEAVE IT (http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&hl=en&geocode=&q=from:+Oklahoma+City+OK+to:+Emerson,+MB&sll=49.04867,-97.229691&sspn=0.174615,0.353622&ie=UTF8&z=4&om=1)!!!

[soonerscuba]

If you don't support Clinton or Obama you're with the enemy... You should be charged with treason because you are making the country weaker by subverting our leaders.

MOVE TO FRANCE AND WORSHIP SARKO WITH THE REST OF YOUR KIND!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[mdklatt]

I can't imagine voting for any of the ****wits on either side at this point, but a dimz win would be worth it purely for the schadenfreude value.

[Tear Down This Wall]

Look, scuba, I'm not voting for anyone in either party at this point. I'd vote for Joe Lieberman, and maybe Fred Thompson (although, I think he's hiding something that will prevent me from voting for him if he does run).

It just doesn't matter enough to me. I've watched snippets of a few of both of the parties' debates, and let me say they all suck. Not one of them is worth a squirt of pis*s.

We are quickly headed toward a plutocracy - the rich of all stripe buying elections. The Rupert Murdochs versus the George Soros'. It's disgusting.

So, I can't sit here and pretend Barak Obama or Mitt Romney or any of these jokers really know anything more than talking in politicorporate platitudes, grinning, and shaking hands.

Like Baylor football in the Big 12, they all suck it.

[Tear Down This Wall]

The only thing I'm ever voting for again is Truck Full Of Mexicans.

[mdklatt]

Look, scuba, I'm not voting for anyone in either party at this point. I'd vote for Joe Lieberman, and maybe Fred Thompson (although, I think he's hiding something that will prevent me from voting for him if he does run).


I might be able to get behind some Joementum. Ron Paul has some appeal, although he's libertarian to the point of being impractical. No way in hell we'll get a chance to vote for either one, though.

[RFH Shakes]

"Barack Obama believes that every American has the right to affordable, comprehensive
and portable health coverage.":confused:

Hmmm.... I don't remember that amendment.

[mdklatt]

"Barack Obama believes that every American has the right to affordable, comprehensive
and portable health coverage.":confused:

Hmmm.... I don't remember that amendment.


An America where poor people aren't left to die in the streets is an America I don't want any part of. Especially if it leads to lower health care costs for everybody.

[RFH Shakes]

An America where poor people aren't left to die in the streets is an America I don't want any part of. Especially if it leads to lower health care costs for everybody.

Current Federal law prevents hospitals from turning people down just because they can't afford treatment.

Nothing the Federal Gov't does leads to lower costs.

[mdklatt]

Current Federal law prevents hospitals from turning people down just because they can't afford treatment.

Nothing the Federal Gov't does leads to lower costs.

Great, so let's continue to pay $1000 for somebody with a cold to go to the ER instead of $100 for a doctor visit. It's stupid, but at least it's not "socialist".

[85Sooner]

Wow. That is quite a glossing, you do realize that universal doesn't mean government provided, right?


I hope your kidding. Right?

[85Sooner]

Great, so let's continue to pay $1000 for somebody with a cold to go to the ER instead of $100 for a doctor visit. It's stupid, but at least it's not "socialist".


It is socialist if the person going isn't the person paying. What needs to happen is to get rid of the third party system and let people research costs just like they do in every other area of the economy.

I recently had a CTS (not covered by insurance) I paid out of my pocket 350.00. My son recently had one done at the hospital. They charged 3500.00. After the "insurance discount" I had to pony up 750.00 for his. I have a 2k deductible plus the 500-600 per month coverage. Thats 7200.00 per year plus 2k deductible. I promise I am not rich and it is ridiculous.

Cat scans are like xrays. old technology.

[olevetonahill]

Im glad I try to stay outta these kinda threads :D

[mdklatt]

IMy son recently had one done at the hospital. They charged 3500.00. After the "insurance discount" I had to pony up 750.00 for his.

Imagine how much less they could charge if the ER wasn't full of people with colds.

[85Sooner]

Imagine how much less they could charge if the ER wasn't full of people with colds.


that won't change.

[sooneron]

Alarmists RMFO

[Vaevictis]

Current Federal law prevents hospitals from turning people down just because they can't afford treatment.

AFAIK, it doesn't. The law requires that they stabilize you. It's not the same thing.

[olevetonahill]

AFAIK, it doesn't. The law requires that they stabilize you. It's not the same thing.
So ya saying they stabilize you then toss youass out ?

[Vaevictis]

So ya saying they stabilize you then toss youass out ?

As long as they think you're not going to immediately "unstabilize", I believe they are allowed to do just that.

According to my understanding, for example, if you have cancer, they don't have to lift a finger until you're dying -- at which point, they have to do their best to keep you alive, but by which point it's far too late to actually save your life.

[olevetonahill]

I had no clue .

[Octavian]

I'm embarrassed that we allowed ourselves to have socialist fire departments, police departments, schools, and mail services. To think we allowed that here....in the United States. It's sad really.


If you've ever benefited from one of these pinko leftist organizations, be careful. It's a slippery slope and soon you could very well be a bisexual godless vegan who worships Lenin instead of Jesus.


Be very careful....if they haven't gotten to you already.

[Vaevictis]

I believe the governing law is the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act ("EMTALA",42 USC § 1395dd) which states:

(And, FWIW, I'm cutting out a lot of specifics while attempting to preserve the general intent. If you want to read the whole thing, check http://assembler.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode42/usc_sec_42_00001395--dd000-.html)


(a) Medical screening requirement
In the case of a hospital that has a hospital emergency department, if any individual (...) comes to the emergency department (...), the hospital must provide for an appropriate medical screening examination (...) to determine whether or not an emergency medical condition (...) exists.

My understanding: If you enter the emergency room, the hospital must make a reasonable effort to determine whether an emergency exists.


(b) Necessary stabilizing treatment for emergency medical conditions and labor
(1) In general
If any individual (...) comes to a hospital and the hospital determines that the individual has an emergency medical condition, the hospital must provide either—
(A) within the staff and facilities available at the hospital, for such further medical examination and such treatment as may be required to stabilize the medical condition, or
(B) for transfer of the individual to another medical facility in accordance with subsection (c) of this section.

My understanding: If the hospital finds that an emergency exists, they must either treat you if they are capable of doing so, or provide transport for you to someone who is.


(e) Definitions
In this section:
(1) The term “emergency medical condition” means—
(A) a medical 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—
(i) placing the health of the individual (or, with respect to a pregnant woman, the health of the woman or her unborn child) in serious jeopardy,
(ii) serious impairment to bodily functions, or
(iii) serious dysfunction of any bodily organ or part; or

My understanding: Keywords there are "acute" and "immediate." The medical problem has to meet one of the conditions (i, ii or iii) and it must be such that failure to treat right now will necessarily lead to one of the (i, ii or iii) conditions.

Any other situation, they can toss you out on your ***, and that would include my example of cancer -- cancer doesn't usually result in an "emergency condition" until the point that it's already metastasized and is in the act of killing you. And by that point, they really can't do anything for you.