Home | Community | Message Board


Azarius
Please support our sponsors.

General Interest >> Political Discussion

Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Jump to first unread post. Pages: 1 | 2 | Next >  [ show all ]
OfflineEllis Dee
Archangel
Male User Gallery Arcade Champion: Duck Hunt, Enemy Enforcer

Registered: 06/30/01
Posts: 13,104
Loc: Fire in the sky
Last seen: 2 months, 16 days
59 Socialists in Congress - 2002
    #882626 - 09/13/02 07:01 PM (15 years, 3 months ago)

59 Socialists in Congress - 2002
By Chuck Morse

------------------------------------------------------------------------
On the extreme left wing of the Democratic Party, The Progressive Caucus is affiliated with the Democratic Socialists of America http://bernie.house.gov/pc/members.asp, which, in turn, is the American affiliate of the Socialist International. Congressional Caucus members, I would contend, . . .
http://www.chuckmorse.com/59_socialists_in_congress.html



Following is the Sept. 2002 membership list of the Progressive Caucus:


Neil Abercrombie - Hawaii
Tammy Baldwin - Wisconsin
Xavier Becerra - California
David Bonior - Michigan
Corrine Brown - Florida
Sherron Brown - Ohio
Michael Capuano - Mass.
Julia Carson - Indiana
William "Lacy" Clay - Missouri
John Conyers - Michigan
Danny Davis - Illinois
Peter DeFazio - Oregon
Rosa DeLauro - Conn.
Lane Evans - Illinois
Eni Faleomavaega - Am Samoa
Sam Farr - California
Chaka Fattah - Penn.
Bob Filner - California
Barney Frank - Mass.
Luis Gutierrez - Illinois
Earl Hilliard - Alabama
Maurice Hinchey - New York
Jesse Jackson Jr. - Illinois
Sheila Jackson-Lee - Texas
Stephanie Tubbs Jones - Ohio
Marcy Kaptur - Ohio
Dennis Kucinich - Ohio
Tom Lantos - California
Barbara Lee - California
John Lewis - Georgia
Jim McDermott - Washington
James P. McGovern - Mass.
Cynthia McKinney - Georgia
Carrie Meek - Florida
George Miller - California
Patsy Mink - Hawaii
Jerry Nadler - New York
Eleanor Holmes Norton - D.C.
John Olver - Mass.
Major Owens - New York
Ed Pastor - Arizona
Donald Payne - New Jersey
Nancy Pelosi - California
Bobby Rush - Illinois
Bernie Sanders - Vermont
Jan Schakowsky - Illinois
Jose Serrano - New York
Hilda Solis - California
Pete Stark - California
Bennie Thompson - Miss.
John Tierney - Mass.
Tom Udall - New Mexico
Nydia Velazquez - New York
Maxine Waters - California
Diane Watson - California
Mel Watt - North Carolina
Henry Waxman - California
Paul Wellstone - Minnesota
Lynn Woolsey - California


--------------------
"If the foundations be destroyed, what can the righteous do."-King Solomon

And there was war in heaven: Michael and his angels fought against the dragon; and the dragon fought and his angels,


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineJammer
Computers areMORE Addictive!

Registered: 11/05/00
Posts: 3,998
Loc: (God's Country) - USA
Last seen: 12 years, 2 months
Re: 59 Socialists in Congress - 2002 [Re: Ellis Dee]
    #882657 - 09/13/02 07:18 PM (15 years, 2 months ago)

You forgot to list all of the Natzi's. (I wont bother naming names) :smirk: 


--------------------
>>Jammer>>


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineEllis Dee
Archangel
Male User Gallery Arcade Champion: Duck Hunt, Enemy Enforcer

Registered: 06/30/01
Posts: 13,104
Loc: Fire in the sky
Last seen: 2 months, 16 days
Re: 59 Socialists in Congress - 2002 [Re: Jammer]
    #882668 - 09/13/02 07:23 PM (15 years, 2 months ago)

The NAZI's, if there are any, aren't bold enough to form a caucus identifying themselves as such.


--------------------
"If the foundations be destroyed, what can the righteous do."-King Solomon

And there was war in heaven: Michael and his angels fought against the dragon; and the dragon fought and his angels,


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineJammer
Computers areMORE Addictive!

Registered: 11/05/00
Posts: 3,998
Loc: (God's Country) - USA
Last seen: 12 years, 2 months
Re: 59 Socialists in Congress - 2002 [Re: Ellis Dee]
    #882673 - 09/13/02 07:26 PM (15 years, 2 months ago)

So thats how ya spell NAZI. :grin: 


--------------------
>>Jammer>>


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Offlineriffic
Male
Registered: 09/12/02
Posts: 99
Last seen: 3 years, 8 months
Re: 59 Socialists in Congress - 2002 [Re: Jammer]
    #883305 - 09/14/02 02:34 AM (15 years, 2 months ago)

who cares? take off your tin-foil hat.. they're not out to get you.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineJammer
Computers areMORE Addictive!

Registered: 11/05/00
Posts: 3,998
Loc: (God's Country) - USA
Last seen: 12 years, 2 months
Re: 59 Socialists in Congress - 2002 [Re: riffic]
    #884074 - 09/15/02 09:07 PM (15 years, 2 months ago)

Dont look now.


--------------------
>>Jammer>>


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Invisible1stimer
Religion=Rape
Registered: 11/18/01
Posts: 1,280
Loc: Amerika
Re: 59 Socialists in Congress - 2002 [Re: Ellis Dee]
    #884129 - 09/15/02 09:25 PM (15 years, 2 months ago)

heres my list of nazis:
republican #1
republican #2
republican #3
etc.....
George Bush #1
George Bush #2
etc......


--------------------
ash dingy donker mo gollyhopper patty popiton rockstop bueno mayo riggedy jig bobber johnathan pattywhacker gogboob t-shirt monkey.

There is such emotion in the distortion.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Invisiblecarbonhoots
old hand

Registered: 09/11/01
Posts: 1,351
Loc: BC Canada
Re: 59 Socialists in Congress - 2002 [Re: Ellis Dee]
    #884491 - 09/16/02 12:07 AM (15 years, 2 months ago)

Man, the USA could use some socialism on my opinion. The country has extreme poverty, millions of people can't afford to get medical care, some of the public schools are in terrible shape, the gap between rich and poor is astounding.

Socialism doesn't mean "A society exactly like the USSR", which is what some people seem to think.

Here in BC, the government owns the power company. It feels much more my own than if a group of shareholders owned it. It provides cheap (5.5cents per KH, TOTAL) power, and employees a lot of regular folks with good pay. The profit it makes goes to the government in lieu of taxation. What the hell is wrong with that?

But if in USA someone suggested to nationalize a power company, they would be branded as enemies of freedom, commies, socialists...


--------------------
  -I'd rather have a frontal lobotomy than a bottle in front of me

CANADIAN CENTER FOR POLICY ALTERNATIVES


Edited by carbonhoots (09/16/02 12:25 AM)


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Anonymous

Re: 59 Socialists in Congress - 2002 [Re: carbonhoots]
    #885172 - 09/16/02 08:58 AM (15 years, 2 months ago)

In reply to:

Man, the USA could use some socialism on my opinion



Good thing you live in BC. Stay there.

In reply to:

The country has extreme poverty,



Yes, we have the fattest poor people in the world, with televisions, phones, cars, etc. Our 'poor' people have more material wealth than the average person of seventy-five years ago.

In reply to:

millions of people can't afford to get medical care,



Millions of people can walk into any emergency room in the country and the hospitals will be forced by law to provide them with medical care.

In reply to:

some of the public schools are in terrible shape



Now, you're getting it. They're public schools, government run. The more money that is spent on them, the lower quality product that is produced. One need only look at things like SAT scores and coorelate them with expenditures.

In reply to:

Here in BC, the government owns the power company. It feels much more my own than if a group of shareholders owned it. It provides cheap (5.5cents per KH, TOTAL) power, and employees a lot of regular folks with good pay. The profit it makes goes to the government in lieu of taxation. What the hell is wrong with that?



I'm curious, what is the income tax rate where you live and what is the sales tax? I bet that it's lower here and if you added in electrical costs, the expense of all these combined would still be lower as a percentage of income.

TANSTAAFL - There Aint No Such Thing As A Free Lunch. Everything is paid for one way or another.

In reply to:

But if in USA someone suggested to nationalize a power company, they would be branded as enemies of freedom, commies, socialists...



So, what wrong with truth in labelling?


Edited by Evolving (09/16/02 07:57 PM)


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleLallafa
p_g monocle
 User Gallery

Registered: 04/13/01
Posts: 2,598
Loc: underbelly
Re: 59 Socialists in Congress - 2002 [Re: Ellis Dee]
    #885185 - 09/16/02 09:07 AM (15 years, 2 months ago)

z


--------------------
my tax dollars going to more hits of acid for charles manson


Edited by Lallafa (05/04/10 03:19 PM)


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineJammer
Computers areMORE Addictive!

Registered: 11/05/00
Posts: 3,998
Loc: (God's Country) - USA
Last seen: 12 years, 2 months
Re: 59 Socialists in Congress - 2002 [Re: Lallafa]
    #885258 - 09/16/02 09:39 AM (15 years, 2 months ago)

I agree.


--------------------
>>Jammer>>


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineEllis Dee
Archangel
Male User Gallery Arcade Champion: Duck Hunt, Enemy Enforcer

Registered: 06/30/01
Posts: 13,104
Loc: Fire in the sky
Last seen: 2 months, 16 days
Re: 59 Socialists in Congress - 2002 [Re: Lallafa]
    #886364 - 09/16/02 07:15 PM (15 years, 2 months ago)

Those people are joined an affiliate Organization of Democraic socialists of America! Why do you challenge the way they identify themselves?


--------------------
"If the foundations be destroyed, what can the righteous do."-King Solomon

And there was war in heaven: Michael and his angels fought against the dragon; and the dragon fought and his angels,


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineMortMtroN
journeyman
Registered: 09/09/02
Posts: 62
Last seen: 15 years, 2 months
Re: 59 Socialists in Congress - 2002 [Re: Ellis Dee]
    #888738 - 09/17/02 03:39 PM (15 years, 2 months ago)

"Millions of people can walk into any emergency room in the country and the hospitals will be forced by law to provide them with medical care."

If you're talking about the US you are full of shit. The first thing that happens when you go to ER is they make sure you have insurance, even if you are bleeding out of your face so bad you can't talk to them.
Please tell me how I can take advantage of this law.


Edited by MortMtroN (09/17/02 03:40 PM)


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Invisible1stimer
Religion=Rape
Registered: 11/18/01
Posts: 1,280
Loc: Amerika
Re: 59 Socialists in Congress - 2002 [Re: MortMtroN]
    #889384 - 09/17/02 08:16 PM (15 years, 2 months ago)

you're right. I think in a supposedly "enlightened" country, healthcare should be free and apply to everyone. it is fucked up that someone dying can be turned away and the excuse is that you didn't make enough money to deserve to live. fucked up i say fucked up.


--------------------
ash dingy donker mo gollyhopper patty popiton rockstop bueno mayo riggedy jig bobber johnathan pattywhacker gogboob t-shirt monkey.

There is such emotion in the distortion.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Invisible1stimer
Religion=Rape
Registered: 11/18/01
Posts: 1,280
Loc: Amerika
Re: 59 Socialists in Congress - 2002 [Re: MortMtroN]
    #889386 - 09/17/02 08:17 PM (15 years, 2 months ago)

one more fucked up for good measure.

FUCKED UP!!!!!!!!!!!


--------------------
ash dingy donker mo gollyhopper patty popiton rockstop bueno mayo riggedy jig bobber johnathan pattywhacker gogboob t-shirt monkey.

There is such emotion in the distortion.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Invisible1stimer
Religion=Rape
Registered: 11/18/01
Posts: 1,280
Loc: Amerika
Re: 59 Socialists in Congress - 2002 [Re: MortMtroN]
    #889388 - 09/17/02 08:18 PM (15 years, 2 months ago)

and i dont care how it gets done. if they have to cut back on the war machine, so be it.


--------------------
ash dingy donker mo gollyhopper patty popiton rockstop bueno mayo riggedy jig bobber johnathan pattywhacker gogboob t-shirt monkey.

There is such emotion in the distortion.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflinePhluck
Carpal Tunnel
 User Gallery

Registered: 04/11/99
Posts: 11,393
Loc: Canada
Last seen: 5 months, 18 days
Re: 59 Socialists in Congress - 2002 [Re: Ellis Dee]
    #890744 - 09/18/02 10:55 AM (15 years, 2 months ago)

Well thank you Mister McCarthy.


--------------------
"I have no valid complaint against hustlers. No rational bitch. But the act of selling is repulsive to me. I harbor a secret urge to whack a salesman in the face, crack his teeth and put red bumps around his eyes." -Hunter S Thompson
http://phluck.is-after.us


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Anonymous

Re: 59 Socialists in Congress - 2002 [Re: MortMtroN]
    #890750 - 09/18/02 11:00 AM (15 years, 2 months ago)

In reply to:

If you're talking about the US you are full of shit...



The following is the U.S. code of which I wrote:

EMTALA STATUTE: 42 USC 1395 dd
42 USC 1395dd. Examination and treatment for emergency medical conditions and women in labor; also known as Section 1867 of the Social Security Act; also known as Section 9121 of the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985.

Common names: COBRA, EMTALA, Anti-dumping law.

(a) Medical screening requirement

In the case of a hospital that has a hospital emergency department, if any individual (whether or not eligible for benefits under this subchapter) comes to the emergency department and a request is made on the individual's behalf for examination or treatment for a medical condition, the hospital must provide for an appropriate medical screening examination within the capability of the hospital's emergency department, including ancillary services routinely available to the emergency department, to determine whether or not an emergency medical condition (within the meaning of subsection (e)(1) of this section) exists.

(b) Necessary stabilizing treatment for emergency medical conditions and labor


(1) In general If any individual (whether or not eligible for benefits under this subchapter) 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.

(2) Refusal to consent to treatment A hospital is deemed to meet the requirement of paragraph (1)(A) with respect to an individual if the hospital offers the individual the further medical examination and treatment described in that paragraph and informs the individual (or a person acting on the individual's behalf) of the risks and benefits to the individual of such examination and treatment, but the individual (or a person acting on the individual's behalf) refuses to consent to the examination and treatment. The hospital shall take all reasonable steps to secure the individual's (or person's) written informed consent to refuse such examination and treatment.

(3) Refusal to consent to transfer

A hospital is deemed to meet the requirement of paragraph (1) with respect to an individual if the hospital offers to transfer the individual to another medical facility in accordance with subsection (c) of this section and informs the individual (or a person acting on the individual's behalf) of the risks and benefits to the individual of such transfer, but the individual (or a person acting on the individual's behalf) refuses to consent to the transfer. The hospital shall take all reasonable steps to secure the individual's (or person's) written informed consent to refuse such transfer.

(c) Restricting transfers until individual stabilized


(1) Rule If an individual at a hospital has an emergency medical condition which has not been stabilized (within the meaning of subsection (e)(3)(B) of this section), the hospital may not transfer the individual unless--

(A)(i) the individual (or a legally responsible person acting on the individual's behalf) after being informed of the hospital's obligations under this section and of the risk of transfer, in writing requests transfer to another medical facility,

(ii) a physician (within the meaning of section 1395x(r)(1) of this title) has signed a certification that [FN1] based upon the information available at the time of transfer, the medical benefits reasonably expected from the provision of appropriate medical treatment at another medical facility outweigh the increased risks to the individual and, in the case of labor, to the unborn child from effecting the transfer, or

(iii) if a physician is not physically present in the emergency department at the time an individual is transferred, a qualified medical person (as defined by the Secretary in regulations) has signed a certification described in clause (ii) after a physician (as defined in section 1395x(r)(1) of this title), in consultation with the person, has made the determination described in such clause, and subsequently countersigns the certification; and

(B) the transfer is an appropriate transfer (within the meaning of paragraph (2)) to that facility. A certification described in clause (ii) or (iii) of subparagraph (A) shall include a summary of the risks and benefits upon which the certification is based.

(2) Appropriate transfer

An appropriate transfer to a medical facility is a transfer--

(A) in which the transferring hospital provides the medical treatment within its capacity which minimizes the risks to the individual's health and, in the case of a woman in labor, the health of the unborn child;

(B) in which the receiving facility--

(i) has available space and qualified personnel for the treatment of the individual, and

(ii) has agreed to accept transfer of the individual and to provide appropriate medical treatment;

(C) in which the transferring hospital sends to the receiving facility all medical records (or copies thereof), related to the emergency condition for which the individual has presented, available at the time of the transfer, including records related to the individual's emergency medical condition, observations of signs or symptoms, preliminary diagnosis, treatment provided, results of any tests and the informed written consent or certification (or copy thereof) provided under paragraph (1)(A), and the name and address of any on-call physician (described in subsection (d)(1)(C) of this section) who has refused or failed to appear within a reasonable time to provide necessary stabilizing treatment;

(D) in which the transfer is effected through qualified personnel and transportation equipment, as required including the use of necessary and medically appropriate life support measures during the transfer; and

(E) which meets such other requirements as the Secretary may find necessary in the interest of the health and safety of individuals transferred.

(d) Enforcement


(1) Civil money penalties

(A) A participating hospital that negligently violates a requirement of this section is subject to a civil money penalty of not more than $50,000 (or not more than $25,000 in the case of a hospital with less than 100 beds) for each such violation. The provisions of section 1320a-7a of this title (other than subsections (a) and (b)) shall apply to a civil money penalty under this subparagraph in the same manner as such provisions apply with respect to a penalty or proceeding under section 1320a-7a(a) of this title.

(B) Subject to subparagraph (C), any physician who is responsible for the examination, treatment, or transfer of an individual in a participating hospital, including a physician on-call for the care of such an individual, and who negligently violates a requirement of this section, including a physician who--

(i) signs a certification under subsection (c)(1)(A) of this section that the medical benefits reasonably to be expected from a transfer to another facility outweigh the risks associated with the transfer, if the physician knew or should have known that the benefits did not outweigh the risks, or


(ii) misrepresents an individual's condition or other information, including a hospital's obligations under this section,

is subject to a civil money penalty of not more than $50,000 for each such violation and, if the violation is gross and flagrant or is repeated, to exclusion from participation in this subchapter and State health care programs. The provisions of section 1320a-7a of this title (other than the first and second sentences of subsection (a) and subsection (b)) shall apply to a civil money penalty and exclusion under this subparagraph in the same manner as such provisions apply with respect to a penalty, exclusion, or proceeding under section 1320a-7a(a) of this title.

(C) If, after an initial examination, a physician determines that the individual requires the services of a physician listed by the hospital on its list of on-call physicians (required to be maintained under section 1395cc(a)(1)(I) of this title) and notifies the on-call physician and the on- call physician fails or refuses to appear within a reasonable period of time, and the physician orders the transfer of the individual because the physician determines that without the services of the on-call physician the benefits of transfer outweigh the risks of transfer, the physician authorizing the transfer shall not be subject to a penalty under subparagraph (B). However, the previous sentence shall not apply to the hospital or to the on-call physician who failed or refused to appear.

(2) Civil enforcement

(A) Personal harm

Any individual who suffers personal harm as a direct result of a participating hospital's violation of a requirement of this section may, in a civil action against the participating hospital, obtain those damages available for personal injury under the law of the State in which the hospital is located, and such equitable relief as is appropriate.

(B) Financial loss to other medical facility

Any medical facility that suffers a financial loss as a direct result of a participating hospital's violation of a requirement of this section may, in a civil action against the participating hospital, obtain those damages available for financial loss, under the law of the State in which the hospital is located, and such equitable relief as is appropriate.

(C) Limitations on actions

No action may be brought under this paragraph more than two years after the date of the violation with respect to which the action is brought.

(3) Consultation with peer review organizations

In considering allegations of violations of the requirements of this section in imposing sanctions under paragraph (1), the Secretary shall request the appropriate utilization and quality control peer review organization (with a contract under part B of subchapter XI of this chapter) to assess whether the individual involved had an emergency medical condition which had not been stabilized, and provide a report on its findings. Except in the case in which a delay would jeopardize the health or safety of individuals, the Secretary shall request such a review before effecting a sanction under paragraph (1) and shall provide a period of at least 60 days for such review.

(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

(B) with respect to a pregnant women [FN2] who is having contractions--


(i) that there is inadequate time to effect a safe transfer to another hospital before delivery, or

(ii) that transfer may pose a threat to the health or safety of the woman or the unborn child.

(2) The term "participating hospital" means hospital that has entered into a provider agreement under section 1395cc of this title.

(3)(A) The term "to stabilize" means, with respect to an emergency medical condition described in paragraph (1)(A),

to provide such medical treatment of the condition as may be necessary to assure, within reasonable medical probability, that no material deterioration of the condition is likely to result from or occur during the transfer of the individual from a facility, or, with respect to an emergency medical condition described in paragraph (1)(B), to deliver (including the placenta).

(B) The term "stabilized" means, with respect to an emergency medical condition described in paragraph (1)(A), that no material deterioration of the condition is likely, within reasonable medical probability, to result from or occur during the transfer of the individual from a facility, or, with respect to an emergency medical condition described in paragraph (1)(B), that the woman has delivered (including the placenta).

(4) The term "transfer" means

the movement (including the discharge) of an individual outside a hospital's facilities at the direction of any person employed by (or affiliated or associated, directly or indirectly, with) the hospital, but does not include such a movement of an individual who (A) has been declared dead, or (B) leaves the facility without the permission of any such person.

(5) The term "hospital" includes a critical access hospital (as defined in section 1395x(mm)(1) of this title).

(f) Preemption


The provisions of this section do not preempt any State or local law requirement, except to the extent that the requirement directly conflicts with a requirement of this section.

(g) Nondiscrimination


A participating hospital that has specialized capabilities or facilities (such as burn units, shock-trauma units, neonatal intensive care units, or (with respect to rural areas) regional referral centers as identified by the Secretary in regulation) shall not refuse to accept an appropriate transfer of an individual who requires such specialized capabilities or facilities if the hospital has the capacity to treat the individual.

(h) No delay in examination or treatment


A participating hospital may not delay provision of an appropriate medical screening examination required under subsection (a) of this section or further medical examination and treatment required under subsection (b) of this section in order to inquire about the individual's method of payment or insurance status.

(i) Whistleblower protections


A participating hospital may not penalize or take adverse action against a qualified medical person described in subsection (c)(1)(A)(iii) or a physician because the person or physician refuses to authorize the transfer of an individual with an emergency medical condition that has not been stabilized or against any hospital employee because the employee reports a violation of a requirement of this section.



Edited by Evolving (09/18/02 11:04 AM)


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineJammer
Computers areMORE Addictive!

Registered: 11/05/00
Posts: 3,998
Loc: (God's Country) - USA
Last seen: 12 years, 2 months
Re: 59 Socialists in Congress - 2002 [Re: ]
    #892907 - 09/19/02 10:01 AM (15 years, 2 months ago)

I dont have time to look up the details, but there was a case in the media where an injured/sick American died in the PARKING LOT of a hospital while begging for someone to carry him/her inside. They claimed that the hospital's personal could, and did see this person asking for someone to drag them into ER- the hospital's policy was that any hospital personal while on duty was strictly forbiding from carrying anyone into ER- This person died, and the hospital stood by it's policy. I understand that many other hospitals in America have the same policy.

The law may seem to be on the side of uninsured Americans, but I can asure you that they never ever get treated the same as insured Americans.


--------------------
>>Jammer>>


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineAlbino_Jesus
Clearly Retarded
 User Gallery

Registered: 09/14/02
Posts: 1,698
Loc: Construction ahead...
Last seen: 7 years, 10 months
Re: 59 Socialists in Congress - 2002 [Re: ]
    #892929 - 09/19/02 10:12 AM (15 years, 2 months ago)

In reply to:

But if in USA someone suggested to nationalize a power company, they would be branded as enemies of freedom, commies, socialists...


-----------------------


So, what wrong with truth in labelling?






erm, in that case, we're all enemies of freedom, commies and socialists already.
hello U.S. Postal Service. how unconstitutional you are. *smooch*


--------------------
The only difference between the Republican and Democratic parties is the velocities with which their knees hit the floor when corporations knock on their door.
-Ralph Nader



Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Jump to top. Pages: 1 | 2 | Next >  [ show all ]

General Interest >> Political Discussion

Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* confronting social security carbonhoots 676 6 12/19/04 02:07 PM
by zappaisgod
* question for anyone....
( 1 2 3 4 5 all )
Anonymous 5,537 87 02/24/04 09:24 AM
by GazzBut
* Evidence Surfaces That Obama Was Member of a Socialist "New Party"
( 1 2 3 4 all )
lonestar2004 5,530 71 10/25/08 12:37 PM
by zouden
* socialist libertarianism Sclorch 668 10 07/13/04 04:24 AM
by Baby_Hitler
* Socialist Leads U.S. Senate Race in Vt.
RandalFlagg
620 2 05/29/05 11:25 PM
by Annapurna1
* HITLER WAS A SOCIALIST
( 1 2 3 all )
lonestar2004 3,838 40 02/25/07 02:16 PM
by gluke bastid
* Was John Mccain a Socialist?
( 1 2 all )
KingOftheThing 1,792 20 10/28/08 02:17 PM
by gluke bastid
* did congress legalize torture??...
Annapurna1
1,277 11 05/05/09 11:13 PM
by TGRR

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Enlil
1,726 topic views. 1 members, 0 guests and 7 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Toggle Favorite | Print Topic | Stats ]
Search this thread:
World Seed Supply
Please support our sponsors.

Copyright 1997-2017 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.045 seconds spending 0.004 seconds on 21 queries.