Page 1 of 2

The Best Healthcare System in the World?

Posted: Fri Aug 14, 2009 2:18 pm
by Mikey
Image
Super-clinic finds super-need in L.A. region
Remote Area Medical Foundation provides free care with volunteer doctors and dentists for unemployed and poor people at an eight-day event at Inglewood's Forum arena.

August 12, 2009

A homeless man spent the night camped outside the Forum, hoping to finally get glasses to help him see better. An unemployed grocery clerk waited in desperate need of root canal surgery. A former auto mechanic came with an aching back.

One by one, about 1,500 people made their way through the Inglewood sports arena, where dozens of volunteer doctors, dentists, nurses and other healthcare professionals are providing free medical services this week.

Remote Area Medical Foundation is a trailer-equipped service that has staged health clinics in rural parts of the United States, Mexico and South America. It brought its health camp to urban Los Angeles County on Tuesday to begin an eight-day stint that the group's officials described as its first foray into a major urban setting.

Organizers expected big crowds, in a county with high unemployment and an estimated 22% of working-age adults lacking health insurance.

On Tuesday, the turnout was so large that hundreds had to be turned away.

"We're short-handed," said the mobile clinic's founder, Stan Brock. About 100 dentists were needed, but only about 30 showed up Tuesday. Twenty eye doctors were required, but only about five were on hand, Brock said.

The mobile clinic, based in Knoxville, Tenn., has staged 576 medical clinics over the last 25 years. They have treated nearly 380,000 patients and provided care valued at $36.9 million, said Executive Director Karen Wilson. The group raises money through contributions.

Doctors, nurses and other medical workers who donated their time said most visitors' ailments were basic. But "many have chronic diseases -- high blood pressure, diabetes, asthma -- conditions we can't deal with in just one day," said Dr. Nancy Greep of Santa Monica. Some had problems, such as a recurring cancer, that demand long-term treatment.

For local health officials, the turnout was the latest evidence of the inability of the county's healthcare system to adequately serve low-income patients and the rising ranks of the unemployed.

"It absolutely reinforced what we know based on how overwhelmed our facilities are: The current system of healthcare in the United States is broken," said Carol Meyer, chief network officer of the Los Angeles County Department of Health Services, after surveying the scene.

That theme -- dramatizing the need for changes in the healthcare system -- was part of the point for the elected officials who helped host the medical camp at the Forum. But for the volunteer medical personnel, the motivation was often more personal.

Ramon Merino, a 28-year-old optometry student from Highland Park, was doing vision screening. A licensed optometrist would sign off on his patients' prescriptions.

"I know there's a lot of need for this type of service," he said. "I've been on the other side of it. My mother was a single mother, and I know what it's like to struggle."

Many of the people showing up for care would not have expected to be in such a place until recently.

Verna Pierce, an administrative assistant from South Los Angeles, said she had been without insurance since she was laid off more than two years ago. She dropped her COBRA coverage because it was too expensive.

Going to the dentist or getting a mammogram is a "luxury" now, she said. "It's not deadbeats and people who just want a handout here. That's not the reality today. There are no jobs."

Public hospitals in Los Angeles County have seen a 16.5% increase in people seeking emergency care over the last fiscal year, Meyer said. At Harbor-UCLA, emergency room volume was up 25%; County-USC's volume rose 15%.

Similar increases have been seen elsewhere in the region. The Riverside County Regional Medical Center reported that its indigent patient population -- people who have no insurance and can't qualify for any -- doubled in the three-year period ending June 30, said Amy Weitz, spokeswoman for the California Assn. of Public Hospitals.

At the Forum, those seeking medical treatment included unemployed people who had lost insurance when they lost their jobs as well as some people with insurance who said they could not afford their deductibles or needed services that their carriers didn't cover.

Volunteer nurse DeAnn McEwen, who works in Long Beach, said she saw one woman, a cancer patient, who had maxed-out her benefits under her HMO and couldn't afford more out-of-pocket expenses.

Hector Cervantes, 26, of Inglewood said he was suffering from sinus problems and blurry vision in one eye. He is an El Camino College horticulture student who has no health insurance and doesn't anticipate obtaining any until he graduates and gets a job, which he hopes will be in about two years.

"I have to come back tomorrow for the vision test. I'm unemployed, so I can," Cervantes said as he sat in the Forum's stands awaiting his turn with a doctor.

On the arena's floor, Joseph McSwain was trying on gold-rimmed eyeglass frames that complemented his blond hair. The 33-year-old former security guard said he was laid off from his last job and has recently lived on the streets. He has no health insurance.

"I wouldn't be getting glasses without these people," he said as he fingered his prescription. "I can't see that far, and I can't see at night."

After hearing about the clinic at Four Square Church in Sunland, McSwain took the bus and arrived outside the Forum at midafternoon Monday. He slept on the sidewalk until the arena's parking lot gates were unlocked early Tuesday morning.

In a former athletes' locker room next to the arena floor, Phillip Clovis, 56, of Inglewood sat beneath a handwritten banner that proclaimed "The Chiropractor Is In" and waited to have his back pain treated.

"So far I've had acupuncture and seen a doctor. After the acupuncture, I feel much better," said the uninsured and unemployed auto mechanic, who heard about the clinic while job hunting. "If this service was provided to a majority of Americans, you wouldn't have 3,000 people lined up at the door of the Forum. It's such a blessing."

Demand for dental care was very high, coming weeks after the state ended adult dental services for the poor.

Tony Sykes, a 56-year-old unemployed grocery clerk from South-Central Los Angeles, showed up at 3:30 a.m. with a toothache.

"I want to see a dentist. I think I need a root canal done," he said, pointing to his lower-left jaw. "I haven't been to a dentist for a year or two. I have no insurance -- I just try to take care of myself the best I can."

Dr. R.K. Chetty, who has practiced dentistry for 32 years in Eagle Rock, said he has volunteered to treat individuals for free in other countries.

"So when it's happening in my own backyard, why not get involved?" he said. "I'm getting more out of this than these people are."

Clutching ticket No. 1,095, Vickie Zigetta, 52, of Lakewood might have disagreed.

"A lot of adults don't have medical or dental insurance," Zigetta said. "My three children are covered under Medi-Cal because they're not over 21. But I'm not. The ticket to get in here is like gold."

Zigetta hoped to get her eyes checked and obtain a physical. She planned to return today for a dental checkup.
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me ... ory?page=2

Re: The Best Healthcare System in the World?

Posted: Fri Aug 14, 2009 2:46 pm
by Mikey
Hysterical opposition to any and all reform of the healthcare system, driven by fear of

Death Panels
Obamacare
Rationing

Fear brought to you by the same people who gave you an endless war based on fear of

WMDs in Iraq
Mushroom clouds over NYC

Fear is a great tool for bringing the ignorant and stupid in line.

The Republicans care only about bringing down any and all initiatives that the Administration or Democratic Congress put forward.
They're masters of the fear tactic.

When are you morons going to figure this out for yourselves?

Re: The Best Healthcare System in the World?

Posted: Fri Aug 14, 2009 7:28 pm
by Mikey
88 wrote: Maybe you are painting with too broad a brush?
Isn't that what we're supposed to do here?

:mrgreen:

I'm not entirely in favor of the the whole program being proposed by the Democrats (it's not Obama's plan, really). In fact I'll admit that I don't know entirely what it comprises, as I'm sure neither do you nor anybody else around here.

But if people have to go to the emergency room for "basic health treatment" when they could have been treated much more efficiently by a visit to the doctor's office, which they couldn't afford (who do you think ends up paying for these expensive emergency room visits in the long run?), there's a problem.

If working people have to wait in line for days to get minor problems treated by volunteer doctors and dentists because they can't afford to go to a doctor or dentist, much less buy insurance or even qualify for coverage, there's a problem.

Hopefully we can at least agree that there's a problem. If we can agree that there's a problem, then let's aggree to discuss it rationally

The strategery of the "loyal opposition" is to sow fear of "death panels", rationing, etc. etc. and send people out, or at least encourage them, to show up at any place where rational people would try to discuss the problem and possible solutions, and create such a loud and obnoxious disturbance that discussion is impossible. They don't want a solution, they want the status quo. They want the folks that they see as their enemies to fail at any cost. Sure everybody has their First Amendment rights, but what good is that bullshit doing anybody but the entrenched interests?

I've got great insurance through my employer. I have an HSA where I can determine what I want to spend and where I want to spend it (though Blue Shield still determines what applies to my deductible), but I'm not happy with the status quo. The cost to my employer is way too high, and I've recently been on the other side. I couldn't get individual insurance at any price because of mild hypertension. I was denied over and over again. If I had gotten injured in some way that was completely unrelated I could have been financially ruined for life.

If 70% of the people agree that there's a problem (don't ask me for a "link" for that number it's a wild ass guess) and 10% are violently opposed enough to create such a disturbance that any rational discussion is impossible, then who is going to win, amigo?

Re: The Best Healthcare System in the World?

Posted: Fri Aug 14, 2009 7:40 pm
by indyfrisco
Mikey wrote:If 70% of the people agree that there's a problem (don't ask me for a "link" for that number it's a wild ass guess) and 10% are violently opposed enough to create such a disturbance that any rational discussion is impossible, then who is going to win, amigo?
The terrorists?

Re: The Best Healthcare System in the World?

Posted: Fri Aug 14, 2009 7:53 pm
by Trampis
One by one, about 1,500 people made their way through the Inglewood sports arena, where dozens of volunteer doctors, dentists, nurses and other healthcare professionals are providing free medical services this week.
1500 people really isnt that many people when you consider the number of people that probably live in the area. Its the law of diminishing returns, screw up most peoples health care to help a few who usually wont help themselves.

Re: The Best Healthcare System in the World?

Posted: Fri Aug 14, 2009 7:57 pm
by Mikey
Trampis wrote:
One by one, about 1,500 people made their way through the Inglewood sports arena, where dozens of volunteer doctors, dentists, nurses and other healthcare professionals are providing free medical services this week.
1500 people really isnt that many people when you consider the number of people that probably live in the area. Its the law of diminishing returns, screw up most peoples health care to help a few who usually wont help themselves.
You might want to read the whole article.

It was 1500 on the first day of an eight day stint, and it was all they could possibly handle.

And your assumption that those people "usually won't help themselves" is pure bullshit. If they wouldn't help themselves then why did they show up and stand in line?

Re: The Best Healthcare System in the World?

Posted: Fri Aug 14, 2009 8:11 pm
by Trampis
OK my bad I didnt read the whole article. I scanned it and when they start off paragraphs with names and ages I figure its going to be one sob story after another.

Its free, thats why they went. As long as freebies are available often enough, people will rely on that and not themselves to pay for their healthcare. Im not opposed to people volunteering their services to help others, i think thats great, but dont tell the rest of us we have to pay higher taxes and have mediocre health care so we can provide for those who often wont even try to help themselves.

Re: The Best Healthcare System in the World?

Posted: Fri Aug 14, 2009 8:54 pm
by Mikey
Trampis wrote: i think thats great, but dont tell the rest of us we have to pay higher taxes and have mediocre health care so we can provide for those who often wont even try to help themselves.
Where in this thread is anybody asking you to pay higher taxes and have mediocre healthcare you stupid ignorant fuck?

I'm pretty sure I said that there's a problem with cost and availability and that it might be a good idea to rationally discuss possible solutions.

Now, go back and read my second post.

It's morons like you that prove my point. Thanks for participating.

Re: The Best Healthcare System in the World?

Posted: Fri Aug 14, 2009 9:46 pm
by smackaholic
But, but, but, the evil insurance companies want to actually make a profit!!!!!

Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhh!!!!!!

Re: The Best Healthcare System in the World?

Posted: Fri Aug 14, 2009 9:57 pm
by Derron
Jsc810 wrote:
88 wrote:And, you don't need money in this country to receive basic health treatment. Anyone (illegal aliens, the homeless, etc.) can walk into any emergency room in this country and have an acute health condition stabilized.
Maybe it would be a good thing to come up with a way to cover non-emergent health care for indigents, so as to prevent their condition from becoming acute. You know, the ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure thing. Preventive medicine is a whole bunch less expensive than emergency medicine as well.

Just a thought.
And we could screen them ..in return for your FREE HEALTH CARE you would have to meet weight standards, not be sucking down 2 packs of smogs a day, not use your food stamps for candy and chips, not be addicted to rock and alcohol and in general care for yourself??

Would that be too much to ask for FREE HEALTH CARE ??

Re: The Best Healthcare System in the World?

Posted: Fri Aug 14, 2009 10:05 pm
by Harvdog
Here is nobel thought I got from a friend on e-mail:

Think about this. I bet Jesse and Al would have shit fit if we made all people on welfare take a piss test to get a welfare check.

Like most folks in this country, I have a job. I work, they pay me. I pay my taxes and the government distributes my taxes as it sees fit. In order to get that paycheck in my case, I am required to pass a random urine test (with which I have no problem). What I do have a problem with is the distribution of my taxes to people who don't have to pass a urine test.

So, here is my Question: Shouldn't one have to pass a urine test to get a welfare check because I have to pass one to earn it for them? Shouldn't they also have to pass a urine test to get free healthcare? If my hard earned tax dollars from working are going to fund a public healthcare system, then everyone who takes free healthcare should have to pass a piss test. The tax dollars that are taken from each month are going to help people on welfare, so, piss test them.

Please understand, I have no problem with helping people get back on their feet. I do, on the other hand, have a problem with helping someone sitting on their ass - doing drugs, while I work. . . . Can you imagine how much money each state would save if people had to pass a urine test to get a public assistance check?

I guess we could title that program:
‘Urine or You're Out’.

Plus, all politicians should have to pass a urine test, too.

Just sayin....

Re: The Best Healthcare System in the World?

Posted: Fri Aug 14, 2009 10:19 pm
by H4ever
Trampis wrote:OK my bad I didnt read the whole article. I scanned it and when they start off paragraphs with names and ages I figure its going to be one sob story after another.
Then whats up the "only 1500 people" comment? Do you always spew ignorant shit on this board or perhaps you were trying to comfort yourself from that 3rd world image happening right here is the US of fucking A?
Trampis wrote:Its free, thats why they went. As long as freebies are available often enough, people will rely on that and not themselves to pay for their healthcare. Im not opposed to people volunteering their services to help others, i think thats great, but dont tell the rest of us we have to pay higher taxes and have mediocre health care so we can provide for those who often wont even try to help themselves.

Maybe they would pay for it if there were controls on rackets like health ins, prescription drugs, and the healthcare industry in general.

And you are more than right when you say we shouldn't have to pay higher taxes and have a mediocre system that affects the level of care for all of us.

So what do we do? How do we stem this Godforesaken tide? This muthefuckin' march to socialism???

Get off our asses and do something about the pure, fucking, filthy, GREED that is causing this MARCH to SOCIALISM!

That's right the 1, 2, or 3 percent that don't give a fuck about healthcare costs in this country because their kids' dinner table isn't affected by it, who don't feel a pinch, who can afford care including preventative. Who don't give a fuck about 3rd world imagry in their beloved capitalist, free country. Who bitch and moan about the prospects that lie ahead.
Who expect a GREEDY bunch of politicians who sold out a long time ago to do something about it.

These same hand-wringing naive fucks can be compared to those in France who lost their heads to angry mobs. It'll be too late when you care to address what in the fuck is encouraging this crazy-assed exodus from our core beliefs in this country.

Wake the fuck up. Control the greed or enjoy waiting in line for health care....and bread...and milk...your money is no good when Uncle Sam is doing the rationing. Enjoy.

Re: The Best Healthcare System in the World?

Posted: Fri Aug 14, 2009 10:22 pm
by Mikey
Derron wrote:
Jsc810 wrote:
88 wrote:And, you don't need money in this country to receive basic health treatment. Anyone (illegal aliens, the homeless, etc.) can walk into any emergency room in this country and have an acute health condition stabilized.
Maybe it would be a good thing to come up with a way to cover non-emergent health care for indigents, so as to prevent their condition from becoming acute. You know, the ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure thing. Preventive medicine is a whole bunch less expensive than emergency medicine as well.

Just a thought.
And we could screen them ..in return for your FREE HEALTH CARE you would have to meet weight standards, not be sucking down 2 packs of smogs a day, not use your food stamps for candy and chips, not be addicted to rock and alcohol and in general care for yourself??

Would that be too much to ask for FREE HEALTH CARE ??
Not advocating FREE HEALTH CARE for anybody.

But they already get FREE HEALTH CARE by walking into any emergency room because the hospitals are by law not allowed to turn them away, and it costs a hell of a lot more there than in a doctor's office. And guess who ends up paying for that FREE HEALTH CARE? Hint...it's you and me.

So, as long as they are going to get FREE HEALTH CARE wouldn't it make sense to make it as EFFICIENT as possible?

Re: The Best Healthcare System in the World?

Posted: Fri Aug 14, 2009 10:28 pm
by Derron
Harvdog wrote:


What I do have a problem with is the distribution of my taxes to people who don't have to pass a urine test.

So, here is my Question: Shouldn't one have to pass a urine test to get a welfare check because I have to pass one to earn it for them?

I do, on the other hand, have a problem with helping someone sitting on their ass - doing drugs, while I work

Me,me,me,me..it is all about you...you work so what the fuck is your problem ? You selfish son of a bitch..don't you care about those poor downtrodden able bodied Democratic welfare suck jobs ?? You have a job, your one of the fortunate ones whom the Bush Administration did not fuck out of a job... :meds: :meds:


Just shut up, pass the piss test, and keep watching your pay stub for that tax increase to pay for Obongos health care program..hell if they raise the taxes enough on your employer, he might may you pay more of if yourself..and look how nice that would be..you would be helping them out even more, or he might even lay your ass off to pay for some other sum bitches health care benefits.

Quit work, divest yourself of your assets..home, car,, shit like that, move into public housing, get food stamps and free health care, smoke rock and weed all day long, and then hustle your ass to the welfare office for your next months check.

Re: The Best Healthcare System in the World?

Posted: Fri Aug 14, 2009 10:31 pm
by Derron
Mikey wrote:

But they already get FREE HEALTH CARE by walking into any emergency room because the hospitals are by law not allowed to turn them away, and it costs a hell of a lot more there than in a doctor's office. And guess who ends up paying for that FREE HEALTH CARE? Hint...it's you and me.

So, as long as they are going to get FREE HEALTH CARE wouldn't it make sense to make it as EFFICIENT as possible?
And you are expecting the Federal government to come up with a EFFICIENTsystem that compensates the health care provider for those services ??

The words efficient and government seldom show up together in any sentence.

It will be you and me paying for it anyway..higher premiums or higher taxes..take your pick..

Re: The Best Healthcare System in the World?

Posted: Fri Aug 14, 2009 10:45 pm
by Shlomart Ben Yisrael
You can't afford your wars and health care.
I think your country will take a pass on health care.

Re: The Best Healthcare System in the World?

Posted: Sat Aug 15, 2009 12:10 am
by Derron
Martyred wrote:You can't afford your wars and health care.
I think your country will take a pass on health care.
Because we have to prop up your country when it comes to defense.

Your welcome.

Re: The Best Healthcare System in the World?

Posted: Sat Aug 15, 2009 12:20 am
by Cuda
Mikey wrote:Hysterical opposition to any and all reform of the healthcare system, driven by fear of

Death Panels
Obamacare
Rationing

Fear brought to you by the same people who gave you an endless war based on fear of

WMDs in Iraq
Mushroom clouds over NYC

Fear is a great tool for bringing the ignorant and stupid in line.

The Republicans care only about bringing down any and all initiatives that the Administration or Democratic Congress put forward.
They're masters of the fear tactic.

When are you morons going to figure this out for yourselves?
Didn't this start out as "insuring the 47 million who don't have insurance"? How did it become an "overhaul of the nation's health care system"?

Oh, wait, bait & switch is taken for granted isn't it?

National Health Care- brought to you by the same assholes-errr, Geniuses who brought you FEMA, the Veterans Administration, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, the US Post Office, the House Bank, the Senate cafeteria (sorry, Python), etc, etc, etc.

Dipshit

Re: The Best Healthcare System in the World?

Posted: Sat Aug 15, 2009 12:28 am
by Mikey
88 wrote:
Mikey wrote:
88 wrote: Maybe you are painting with too broad a brush?
Isn't that what we're supposed to do here?

:mrgreen:

I'm not entirely in favor of the the whole program being proposed by the Democrats (it's not Obama's plan, really). In fact I'll admit that I don't know entirely what it comprises, as I'm sure neither do you nor anybody else around here.

But if people have to go to the emergency room for "basic health treatment" when they could have been treated much more efficiently by a visit to the doctor's office, which they couldn't afford (who do you think ends up paying for these expensive emergency room visits in the long run?), there's a problem.

If working people have to wait in line for days to get minor problems treated by volunteer doctors and dentists because they can't afford to go to a doctor or dentist, much less buy insurance or even qualify for coverage, there's a problem.

Hopefully we can at least agree that there's a problem. If we can agree that there's a problem, then let's aggree to discuss it rationally

The strategery of the "loyal opposition" is to sow fear of "death panels", rationing, etc. etc. and send people out, or at least encourage them, to show up at any place where rational people would try to discuss the problem and possible solutions, and create such a loud and obnoxious disturbance that discussion is impossible. They don't want a solution, they want the status quo. They want the folks that they see as their enemies to fail at any cost. Sure everybody has their First Amendment rights, but what good is that bullshit doing anybody but the entrenched interests?

I've got great insurance through my employer. I have an HSA where I can determine what I want to spend and where I want to spend it (though Blue Shield still determines what applies to my deductible), but I'm not happy with the status quo. The cost to my employer is way too high, and I've recently been on the other side. I couldn't get individual insurance at any price because of mild hypertension. I was denied over and over again. If I had gotten injured in some way that was completely unrelated I could have been financially ruined for life.

If 70% of the people agree that there's a problem (don't ask me for a "link" for that number it's a wild ass guess) and 10% are violently opposed enough to create such a disturbance that any rational discussion is impossible, then who is going to win, amigo?
I would enjoy a rational discussion and a fair consideration of all ideas. But that isn't what we're getting. The Democratic Party has been waiting to shove some kind of government medicine/health care program down our throats since Hilleroo failed to get it done in the early 1990's. As you point out, no one knows what this plan really includes. But we are told that whatever it includes, it has to be passed before the August recess. Now that the August deadline has passed, they will say that it has to be passed by September. Why the rush to pass legislation if the Democrats truly want a rational discussion on health care?

John Mackey, the owner of Whole Foods Market, wrote an op-ed piece for The Wall Street Journal earlier this week: (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142 ... 65070.html). He made some proposals, including the wider use of HSA accounts such as you have and such as I provide to my employees. Look what his rational discussion got him: (http://abcnews.go.com/Business/story?id=8322658&page=1). The "left" wants social medicine and the right wants the status quo. I would love to see each state take a few bucks and provide health care clinics that provide basic medical services that could prevent the onset of much worse situations, such as what Jsc810 proposes. But I want the feds out. Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.
What he says makes a lot of sense. The knee-jerk reaction is just as ridiculous as what comes from the other side.

I don't shop at Whole Foods myself. I always thought it was an overpriced outlet for yuppies with too much money to go and convince themselves that they're doing good by shopping "organic".

I prefer the local farmer's market which is not all organic but is all "sustainable". Maybe I'll stop by Whole Foods to show my support.

Re: The Best Healthcare System in the World?

Posted: Sat Aug 15, 2009 12:56 am
by Shlomart Ben Yisrael
88 wrote:
Martyred wrote:You can't afford your wars and health care.
I think your country will take a pass on health care.
My country can win wars
It's been a while.

Re: The Best Healthcare System in the World?

Posted: Sat Aug 15, 2009 12:59 am
by Shlomart Ben Yisrael
Derron wrote:
Martyred wrote:You can't afford your wars and health care.
I think your country will take a pass on health care.
Because we have to prop up your country when it comes to defense.

Your welcome.
Yeah. I live in mortal terror of Al Queda landing craft crashing on our shores...divisions of Taliban moving inland...

Do you realise that the Isoroka Yamamoto quote in your sig contradicts your message? You didn't even know the context of that quote and what it implied, didn't you? You just thought it sounded badass, so you went with it.

You dumb-as-dirt motherfucker.

Re: The Best Healthcare System in the World?

Posted: Sat Aug 15, 2009 12:59 am
by smackaholic
Couple things I noticed shopping in cali. Good produce is stupid cheap, unless you fall for the "organic" BS. I guess this makes sense when about half the fukking country's produce is grown down the street. And you guys still have warehouse style supermarkets. We had them too back in the 80s, but, then everybody wanted the fancy shmancy markets with their faggoty like bakeries and what not.

We stopped at a few farmer's market type deals, but, they were along the central coast so they pety much catered to the well to do organic hippie population. My favorite shopping experience, by far was chinatown. Ridiculously low prices on good produce and entire dead chickens with heads and feet and everything hanging in windows. I loved that place. The OL, not so much. She's too fukking whitebread for that kinda shit.

I'll bet those chinks get a kick out of round eyes paying 3X the price for "organic".

Y'know, maybe it won't be so bad when the yellow horde over runs our ass.

Re: The Best Healthcare System in the World?

Posted: Sat Aug 15, 2009 1:00 am
by smackaholic
Martyred wrote:
Derron wrote:
Martyred wrote:You can't afford your wars and health care.
I think your country will take a pass on health care.
Because we have to prop up your country when it comes to defense.

Your welcome.
Yeah. I live in mortal terror of Al Queda landing craft crashing on our shores...divisions of Taliban moving inland...

Do you realise that your sig contradicts your message? You didn't even know the context of that quote and what it implied, didn't you? You just thought it sounded badass, so you went with it.

You dumb-as-dirt motherfucker.
I've been to toronto. Those fukks are already dug in.

Re: The Best Healthcare System in the World?

Posted: Sat Aug 15, 2009 1:05 am
by Dr_Phibes
Martyred wrote:
88 wrote:
Martyred wrote:You can't afford your wars and health care.
I think your country will take a pass on health care.
My country can win wars
It's been a while.
What's weird - when you really think about it, the US has never won a war.

VietNam? lost
Korea? drew
WWII? Russia
Great War? Britain, France

Grenada? won.
Panama? won.

You people really have some issues to sort out.

Re: The Best Healthcare System in the World?

Posted: Sat Aug 15, 2009 1:07 am
by smackaholic
Organic is the biggest scam going.

Just wtf exactly is "sustainable", besides another marketing phrase to separate hippies from their dough?

Re: The Best Healthcare System in the World?

Posted: Sat Aug 15, 2009 1:07 am
by Shlomart Ben Yisrael
Dr_Phibes wrote:
You people really have some issues to sort out.
Big War - Small Dick

Re: The Best Healthcare System in the World?

Posted: Sat Aug 15, 2009 1:15 am
by Dr_Phibes
it'll get bigger with healthcare.

Re: The Best Healthcare System in the World?

Posted: Sat Aug 15, 2009 1:17 am
by smackaholic
Dr_Phibes wrote: What's weird - when you really think about it, the US has never won a war.

VietNam? lost

try lost interest and went home. it was shitty, but, not the same as losing, technically

Korea? drew

achieved the objective. good as a win

WWII? Russia

yup, them russkies rolled the gerries all by themselves. good job ivan :meds: :lol:

Great War? Britain, France

was pretty much a stalemate, possibly favoring the krauts. We show up and put fresh legs in the game. And all of a sudden it's over.

You fukkin' figure it out. Surprised you didn't credit the russkies who pretty much did what we did in nam, but, for different reasons.


Grenada? won.

damn straight

Panama? won.

yup

You people really have some issues to sort out.
You forgot a few.

Messican war (us)

Spanish war (us)

revolution and 1812- we might not have kicked the redcoats asses, but, we convinced them to settle for their little bitches to the north which scores as a W on my card.

Re: The Best Healthcare System in the World?

Posted: Sat Aug 15, 2009 1:21 am
by Shlomart Ben Yisrael
Dr_Phibes wrote:it'll get bigger with healthcare.
I guess so. I keep hearing those commercials on my local radio stations.

Are you having trouble maintaining a "solid war footing"?
Generals, are colonels and majors whispering behind your back in the locker room?
Now there's a revolutionary new product that builds a fighting man's stamina for blood lust and military budget insanity...
War-vitra ...fight longer...harder...rougher...

Re: The Best Healthcare System in the World?

Posted: Sat Aug 15, 2009 1:23 am
by Shlomart Ben Yisrael
smackaholic wrote: You forgot a few.

Messican war (us)

Spanish war (us)

revolution and 1812...
Wow. Anything in the living memory of something other than about half a dozen Galapagos turtles?

Re: The Best Healthcare System in the World?

Posted: Sat Aug 15, 2009 1:32 am
by Dr_Phibes
Martyred wrote:t half a dozen Galapagos turtles?
Lazy do-nothing cunts live to be about 400. Clearly, a triumph of the market, they'ed be dead otherwise. RACK turtles states rights.

Re: The Best Healthcare System in the World?

Posted: Sat Aug 15, 2009 2:03 am
by Mikey
smackaholic wrote:Organic is the biggest scam going.

Just wtf exactly is "sustainable", besides another marketing phrase to separate hippies from their dough?
"Sustainable" and "organic" though often lumped together can have two very different meanings.

"Organic" is a label.
Sustainablity is a practice, a way of doing things, that nobody "certifies".

A couple of articles from the LA Times discussing the difference (I'm 100% in agreement with the author, BTW)
THE CALIFORNIA COOK
'Organic' label doesn't guarantee quality or taste

Just because it's organic doesn't mean it's the best. Let flavor dictate.
By RUSS PARSONS

July 1, 2009

I don't believe in organic. There, I've said it and I feel better. It's something that's been on my mind for years.

Now, don't get me wrong: I've got nothing against organic farmers. In fact, some of my favorite farmers are organic. I really admire them: Growing delicious food and doing it according to organic standards is adding a degree of difficulty that I wouldn't wish on anyone.

But a lot of my favorite farmers aren't organic, and therein lies the rub.

This may shock some people, and for that I guess I ought to apologize. But really, if I'm honest, I think the ones who need to do the apologizing are the often-well-meaning organic advocates who paint such a black-and-white picture of the way farming works that it seems there should be no choice at all.

Listening to them, you get the idea that if you aren't eating fruits and vegetables that were organically grown, you might as well be mainlining Agent Orange or handing your money straight to some giant industrial agricultural corporation. You're certainly not going to be getting anything with any flavor, they'd argue.

I've been covering agriculture and farmers markets for more than 20 years, and in that time, I've visited scores, if not hundreds, of farms, both conventional and organic. I wrote a book on the subject. And I can say with some degree of certainty that that those ideas are, at best, an oversimplification.

The real world isn't black and white at all. Between pure organics and the reckless use of chemicals, there is a huge gray area, and this is where most farming is done.

Ignoring this means that not only are you being misinformed, but you're also taking your eye off the real mission of supporting small farmers who grow wonderful food.

Whether something is grown organically might be one of the factors you use when you're considering what to buy, but it is by no means the only one: For me, seasonality, locality and -- above all, flavor -- trump it.

And it certainly is not a surefire solution to all of life's (or even agriculture's) ills. You can be a bad farmer growing organically, and you can be a good farmer and still use chemical pesticides, herbicides and fertilizers.

In large part, this is a credit to the organic farming movement, as many of the ideas and techniques it pioneered have now worked their way into the mainstream, reducing the use of chemicals even among farmers who aren't completely organic.

A positive influence

In fact, the sustainable agriculture movement recognizes this, claiming as one of its central tenets the much vaguer requirement of "environmental responsibility" and stating plainly that that doesn't necessarily require growing strictly organically.

And as far as the image of organic farming being the domain of small family farms, for the most part, that is no truer than with conventional farms. A study by UC Santa Cruz professor Julie Guthman, included in her splendid book "Agrarian Dreams," found that the sizes and ownerships of working organic and conventional fruit and vegetable farms are not that different.

That probably shouldn't be that much of a surprise. Contrary to the image of farming being run by a few giant industrial agricultural corporations, roughly 85% of all farms in California -- organic or conventional -- are owned by individuals or families, and 75% are smaller than 100 acres. (On the other hand, Earthbound Farm, which grows organic lettuces and other vegetables, now cultivates more than 40,000 acres.)

The real problem with most farming today is with a commodity marketing system that demands that every decision be made based on what will be cheapest, not what will result in the best flavor. That -- not a simple choice between organic and conventional -- is what makes even small farms behave like industrial giants and ship fruits and vegetables that may look great but have no taste.

The similarities don't end with size and ownership. While organic farming was once a broad philosophical concept that included such things as composting, fallowing land for a certain amount of time every year and even paying living wages to workers, today the difference between organic and conventional is defined almost entirely by the choice not to use certain chemicals.

Certainly, there is a problem with chemical pesticides, herbicides and fertilizers when they are used incorrectly. But it's quite a leap to suggest that because something is harmful when misused, it mustn't be used at all.

Making choices

The hard-line organic-or-nothing crowd refuses to recognize this. As a result, as with any other zero-tolerance program, that can lead to making some awfully dumb decisions.

Walking through the Santa Monica farmers market the other day, I again heard it repeatedly: Customers asking farmers "Are you organic?" as if it were some kind of litmus test for quality or safety. I saw somebody walk away from the absolutely heavenly Snow Queen white nectarines at Art Lange's Honey Crisp stand because he doesn't embrace the organic label.

This has happened so many times to Fitz Kelly, another terrific stone fruit grower at the Santa Monica market, that he has even printed up a fact sheet he routinely hands out explaining why he isn't organic. Basically, it comes down to an orchard rooted in sandy, nutrient-poor soil that requires help from fertilizers; a preference for occasional, minimal sprayings of chemical pesticides rather than what he believes would be more frequent use of weaker, organically approved pesticides; not being willing to spend the time or the money that it takes to go through organic certification; and, truth be told, probably a good chunk of innate Irish stubbornness.

I've been to both of these farms and walked the orchards. You see all the right things: the mix of weeds growing between the trees (in order to attract the good bugs that will eat the bad bugs and reduce the need for spraying); the slight pallor of the leaves (too dark a green can mean overfertilizing); the healthy, diverse communities of birds and wildlife that make them home.

But most important, I've tasted the fruit that comes from them. Because if there's one thing I've learned in more than 20 years of covering farming, it's that you can't fake flavor. You can fudge on almost everything else, but really delicious fruits and vegetables come only from talented, careful farmers doing their very best work.

And that's true regardless of the label that's attached.
And this one, a couple of weeks later, after the guy felt it was safe to come outside again:
THE CALIFORNIA COOK
'Organic' debate goes on, naturally

By RUSS PARSONS

July 29, 2009

When I wrote a column recently about my questions about organic produce, I expected that I'd get a lot of mail. Especially after I started with the statement: "I don't believe in organics."

Organics is an article of faith for a lot of people and what I had to say was pretty far from the accepted dogma. Still, it was something I thought really needed to be said and if, after more than 20 years of covering farming and food issues for The Times, I wouldn't say it, who would?

So when I opened my e-mail the morning the column ran, I had donned my asbestos undershorts, as we kids say. But a funny thing happened on the way to the firestorm.

There was plenty of mail, to be sure -- probably more than I've received for any story that didn't involve salt and turkeys. But the amazing thing was: Most of it was positive. I mean an overwhelming majority -- like by a ratio of 5 or 6 to 1.

Turns out, it seems like this was something a lot of folks have been thinking, but they were just waiting for someone else to be dumb enough to say it out loud first.

To recap: The column argued that people shouldn't buy fruits and vegetables based strictly on whether they were grown by a certified organic farmer (the only ones who are legally allowed to call their produce organic).

My point was that farming is a complicated enterprise and there is a huge gray area between certified organic and the stereotypical heavy-duty use of chemical pesticides, herbicides and fertilizers.

Furthermore, a lot of the best farming practices of the original organic philosophy -- composting, fallowing, crop rotation, the use of nonchemical techniques for controlling most pests -- have been adopted by many nonorganic growers, even though they still reserve the right to use chemicals when they think it's best.

A mixed mailbag

I heard from shoppers, chefs, farmers, agricultural researchers and others involved in the fruit and vegetable business. Most people agreed with me, though certainly not all. One organic farmer told me I was "10 pounds of [compost] in a 5-pound bag." Still, after exchanging several e-mails we ended up agreeing on most of the important issues (and I figured considering he was an Okie like my brother-in-law, I got off pretty easy).

One blogger had so many issues with the column that he broke his response into two posts: "I don't believe in Russ Parsons," Parts I and II. Actually, I wholeheartedly agree with him on the title, though I couldn't make a lot of sense of the rest. (See http://www.jakobsbowl.com and let me know what you think.)

What we eat and how our food is grown are important issues and you shouldn't take any one person's argument as gospel. Do as much research as you can, consider as many different sources as possible, and think critically about all of them. Best of all, visit some farms, both organic and nonorganic, and see how they work.

There were a few misconceptions that came up repeatedly that I'd like to clear up:

First, the column was about the legal definition of organic as it stands today, not the original philosophy, which was much broader (and much of which is incorporated in the philosophy of sustainability, with the notable exception of allowing chemical pesticides and fertilizers if used responsibly).

Some people said they chose organics because they could be sure they weren't from plants that had been genetically modified. It is true that the organic code does forbid GMO, but at this time that's a moot point. There are no genetically modified fruits and vegetables on the market in the U.S. today (field corn and soybeans are another matter).

Others said that they chose organics because the plants had been chosen for flavor rather than disease resistance or how well they transport. The same varietals are used by both organic and nonorganic farmers. The same thing goes for seasonality and locality.

Growers' viewpoint

Along those lines, some of the responses I found most interesting were from the folks directly involved in agriculture.

Several of them focused on the hazy nature of which chemicals are allowed to be sprayed in organic operations and which aren't. "Organic" doesn't mean no spraying; it just means that only certain chemicals can be used.

Byron Phillips, a longtime pest management consultant for Washington's tree fruit industry, had worked with orchards that were certified organic, others that were sustainable and others that were conventional.

"Unfortunately most people still think that organic means no spray of any kind whatsoever -- they don't realize that we often spray organic operations more frequently than conventional operations," he wrote. "I don't think either one is bad -- they are just different.

"Sometimes a [chemical] product can be organic if it is produced a certain way, but not if it is produced a different way." Furthermore, he wrote, "Part of the frustration is that the criteria by which the National Organic Standards Board judges products seems to be somewhat of a moving target and we end up with products that are OK one week and not the next."

Tony Thacher of Friends’ Ranch, a high-quality farmers market citrus grower in Ojai, complained that he doesn't qualify for organic certification because he uses urea as a fertilizer, even though he says it is "the first truly 'organic' compound ever, synthesized in the 1700s. It's made from natural gas and nitrogen from the air and thus of course is not labeled organic. Go figure."

Stephen Pepe, a wine grape grower in the Santa Rita Hills, wrote, "Most vineyards do not bother to get certified organic, not because we do not care about the environment but because some of the organic rules elevate form over substance. For example, to avoid powdery mildew, a fungicide needs to be sprayed. Sulphur is organic but only lasts 7 days or so and needs to be redone after each rain. While a synthetic nonorganic fungicide lasts for 21 days, which means for the environment two less tractor passes through the vineyard spewing diesel into the air and compacting the soil."

Maryann Carpenter of Coastal Farms (formerly Coastal Organics) in Santa Paula wrote that she and her husband, Paul, gave up their organic certification when the costs and paperwork became too much. "I was scared stiff our business at the farmers markets would suffer. We spent months explaining our reasons for dropping out of the program . . . and handed out a detailed letter hoping people would understand that we were still farming the same way (organic), but could not use the word unless we were certified.

"I'm happy to report that the majority of our customers completely understood our reasoning and had faith in the way we grow the food we sell. However, every week there are still people who walk up to our stand and ask "Are you Organic?" As we tell them we have grown 'organic' vegetables for 25 years, but are not 'certified organic,' they immediately turn and walk away. It's frustrating."

Re: The Best Healthcare System in the World?

Posted: Sat Aug 15, 2009 2:08 am
by indyfrisco
Martyred wrote:Yeah. I live in mortal terror of Al Queda landing craft crashing on our shores...divisions of Taliban moving inland...
They never will. Why? You're irrelavent, but you know that already, which is why you are the way you are.

Re: The Best Healthcare System in the World?

Posted: Sat Aug 15, 2009 5:04 am
by Trampis
Mikey wrote:
Trampis wrote: i think thats great, but dont tell the rest of us we have to pay higher taxes and have mediocre health care so we can provide for those who often wont even try to help themselves.
Where in this thread is anybody asking you to pay higher taxes and have mediocre healthcare you stupid ignorant fuck?

I'm pretty sure I said that there's a problem with cost and availability and that it might be a good idea to rationally discuss possible solutions.

Now, go back and read my second post.

It's morons like you that prove my point. Thanks for participating.
I think I live in reality. That being, that not everyone is going to have a happy life. I have an acceptance that to some how give, or as you may say"make affordable" things such as healthcare, college or housing it makes for a mediocre society that is watered down with laziness. I think most humans will do as little as possible to get by, by nature. And to further promote this is a mistake.

If you want to talk cost, sure I think its outrages. Ive heard that costs for simple things are high to bring down the average costs of more complicated procedures. True? I have no idea.

Ahhhhh money, its the great corruptor, and thus, the more the government taxes us, the more money it has and the more corrupt government will get. Lower taxes = less money in the governments hands = less corruption as fewer dollars are available for lobbyists to jockey over.

And I like your farmers market article Mikey(I read all of that). Good stuff.

Re: The Best Healthcare System in the World?

Posted: Sat Aug 15, 2009 12:11 pm
by smackaholic
I think we should have organic medicine. You get sick, either your body heals itself or you get tossed in the compost heap.

Re: The Best Healthcare System in the World?

Posted: Sat Aug 15, 2009 1:18 pm
by Diego in Seattle
smackaholic wrote:I think we should have organic medicine. You get sick, either your body heals itself or you get tossed in the compost heap.
That's already the health care system for many Americans.

Re: The Best Healthcare System in the World?

Posted: Sat Aug 15, 2009 4:34 pm
by Truman
Mikey wrote:Hysterical opposition to any and all reform of the healthcare system, driven by fear of

Death Panels
Obamacare
Rationing
You want intelligent discourse on this subject, Mikey? Spare us the Keith Olbermann talking points, read the fucking bill, and we can have some....
Fear brought to you by the same people who gave you an endless war based on fear of

WMDs in Iraq
Mushroom clouds over NYC
...And some might suggest that fear is brought to you by the same people that took over our banks; co-opted our lending institutions; stole two American automobile manufacturers; believe that they can print money and spend ourselves out of a recession; and saw unemployment nearly double under their watch. So now we're to trust them with Health Care?

BTW, 29 Democrat senators voted for your "endless" war.
Fear is a great tool for bringing the ignorant and stupid in line.
Which is how a dyed-in-the-wool Red became Leader of the Free World. We can do this all day, Mikey... :meds:
The Republicans care only about bringing down any and all initiatives that the Administration or Democratic Congress put forward.
They're masters of the fear tactic.

When are you morons going to figure this out for yourselves?
Asshat. You still don't fucking get it:



...Now back in 1927 an American socialist, Norman Thomas, six times candidate for president on the Socialist Party ticket, said the American people would never vote for socialism. But he said under the name of liberalism the American people will adopt every fragment of the socialist program.

There are many ways in which our government has invaded the precincts of private citizens, the method of earning a living. Our government is in business to the extent over owning more than 19,000 businesses covering different lines of activity. This amounts to a fifth of the total industrial capacity of the United States.

But at the moment I’d like to talk about another way. Because this threat is with us and at the moment is more imminent.

One of the traditional methods of imposing statism or socialism on a people has been by way of medicine. It’s very easy to disguise a medical program as a humanitarian project. Most people are a little reluctant to oppose anything that suggests medical care for people who possibly can’t afford it.

Now, the American people, if you put it to them about socialized medicine and gave them a chance to choose, would unhesitatingly vote against it. We had an example of this. Under the Truman administration it was proposed that we have a compulsory health insurance program for all people in the United States, and, of course, the American people unhesitatingly rejected this.


So, with the American people on record as not wanting socialized medicine, Congressman Ferrand introduced the Ferrand Bill. This was the idea that all people of social security age should be brought under a program of compulsory health insurance. Now this would not only be our senior citizens, this would be the dependents and those who are disabled, this would be young people if they are dependents of someone eligible for Social Security.

Now, Congressman Ferrand brought the program out on that idea of just for that group of people. But Congressman Ferrand was subscribing to this foot in the door philosophy, because he said “if we can only break through and get our foot inside the door, then we can expand the progam after that.”

Walter Ruther said “It’s no secret that the United Automobile Workers is officially on record as backing a program of national health insurance.” And by national health insurance, he meant socialized medicine for every American. Well, let’s see what the socialists themselves have to say about it.

They say: “Once the Ferrrand bill is passed, this nation will be provided with a mechanism for socialized medicince. Capable of indefinite expansion in every direction until it includes the entire population.’ Well, we can’t say we haven’t been warned.

Now, Congressman Ferrand is no longer a congressman of the United States government. He has been replaced, not in his particular assignment, but in his backing of such a bill, by Congressman King of California. It is presented in the idea of a great emergency that millions of our senior citizens are unable to provide needed medical care. But this ignores the fact that in the last decade a hundred and twenty seven million of our citicizens in just ten years, have come under the protection of some form of privately owned medical or hospital insurance.

Now the advocates of this bill, when you try to oppose it, challenge you on an emotional basis. They say “What would you do, throw these poor old people out to die with no medical attention?” That’s ridiculous and of course no one’s has advocated it. As a matter of fact, in the last session of Congress a bill was adopted known as the Kerr-Mills Bill. Now without even allowing this bill to be tried, to see if it works, they have introduced this King Bill which is really the Ferrand Bill.

What is the Kerr-Mills Bill? It is a frank recognition of the medical need or problem of the senior citizens that I have mentioned. And it is provided from the federal government money to the states and the local communities that can be used at the discretion of the state to help those people who need it. Now what reason could the other people have for backing a bill which says “we insist on compulsory health insurance for senior citizens on the basis of age alone; regardless of whether they’re worth millions of dollars, whether they have an income, whether they’re protected by their own insurance, whether they have savings.”

I think we can be excused for believing that as ex-congressman Ferrand said, this was simply an excuse to bring about what they wanted all the time – socialized medicine.

James Madison in 1788, speaking to the Virginia Convention said: “Since the general civilization of mankind, I believe there are more instances of the abridgment of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachment of those in power, than by violent and sudden usurpations. ”

They want to attach this bill to Social Security. And they say here is a great insurance program now instituted, now working.

Let’s take a look at social security itself. Again, very few of us disagree with the original premise that there should be some form of saving that would keep destitution from following unemployment by reason of death, disability or old age. And to this end Social Security was adopted. But it was never intended to supplant private savings, private insurance, pension programs of unions and industries.

Now in our country under our free enterprise system, we have seen medicine reach the greatest heights that it has in any country in the world. Today, the relationship between patient and doctor in this country is something to be envied any place. The privacy, the care that is given to a person, the right to chose a doctor, the right to go from one doctor to the other.

But let’s also look from the other side, at the freedom the doctor loses. A doctor would be reluctant to say this. Well, like you, I am only a patient, so I can say it in his behalf. The doctor begins to lose freedoms; it’s like telling a lie, and one leads to another. First you decide that the doctor can have so many patients. They are equally divided among the various doctors by the government. But then the doctors aren’t equally divided geographically, so a doctor decides he wants to practice in one town and the government has to say to him you can’t live in that town, they already have enough doctors. You have to go someplace else. And from here it is only a short step to dictating where he will go.

This is a freedom that I wonder whether any of us have the right to take from any human being.


I know how I’d feel, if you my fellow citizens decided that to be an actor, I had to become a government employee and work in a national theater. Take it into your own occupation or that of your husband, all of us can see what happens – once you establish the precedent that the government can determine a man’s working place and his working methods, determine his employment. From here it is a short step to all the rest of socialism, to determining his pay and pretty soon your son won’t decide when he’s in school, where he will go or what they will do for a living. He will wait for the government to tell them where he will go to work and what he will do.

In this country of ours, took place the greatest revolution that has ever taken place in world’s history. The only true revolution. Every other revolution simply exchanged one set of rulers for another. But here for the first time in all the thousands of years of man’s relation to man, a little group of the men, the founding fathers - for the first time – established the idea that you and I had within ourselves the God given right and ability to determine our own destiny.

This freedom was built into our government with safeguards. We talk democracy today. And strangely we let democracy begin to assume the aspect of majority rule is all that is needed. Well, majority rule is a fine aspect of democracy, provided there are guarantees written in to our government concerning the rights of the individual and of the minorities.

What can we do about this? Well, you and I can do a great deal. We can write to our congressmen and our senators. We can say right now that we want no further encroachment on these individual liberties and freedoms. And at the moment, the key issue is, we do not want socialized medicine.

In Washington today, 40,000 letters, less than a hundred per congressman, are evidence of a trend in public thinking.

Representative Halleck of Indiana has said, “When the American people want something from Congress, regardless of its political complexion, if they make their wants known, Congress does what the people want.”

So write, and if your this man writes back to you and tells you that he too is for free enterprise, that we have these great services and so forth, that must be performed by government, don’t let him get away with it. Show that you have not been convinced. Write a letter right back and tell him that you believe in government economy and fiscal responsibility; that you know governments don’t tax to get the money the need; governments will always find a need for the money they get and that you demand the continuation of our traditional free enterprise system. You and I can do this. The only way we can do it is by writing to our congressmen even we believe that he is on our side to begin with. Write to strengthen his hand. Give him the ability to stand before his colleagues in Congress and say “I have heard from my constituents and this is what they want.”

Write those letters now; call your friends and tell them to write them. If you don’t, this program I promise you will pass just as surely as the sun will come up tomorrow and behind it will come other federal programs that will invade every area of freedom as we have known it in this country. Until, one day, as Normal Thomas said we will awake to find that we have socialism. And if you don’t do this and if I don’t do it, one of these days you and I are going to spend our sunset years telling our children and our children’s children, what it once was like in America when men were free.”


Prescient. Rack Ronald Reagan.

Re: The Best Healthcare System in the World?

Posted: Sat Aug 15, 2009 5:57 pm
by Cuda
Diego in Seattle wrote:
smackaholic wrote:I think we should have organic medicine. You get sick, either your body heals itself or you get tossed in the compost heap.
That's already the health care system for many Americans.
Obviously not nearly enough

Re: The Best Healthcare System in the World?

Posted: Sat Aug 15, 2009 11:04 pm
by Shlomart Ben Yisrael
The Republican Party hasn't been the "Party Of Reagan" for many years.

Stop kicking his corpse around.

Re: The Best Healthcare System in the World?

Posted: Sun Aug 16, 2009 12:10 pm
by Truman
MerdeRouge wrote:The Republican Party hasn't been the "Party Of Reagan" for many years.

Stop kicking his corpse around.
Irony much, Komrad?

Sin,

Image