Discussion about hot topics trending today

[Gatefan1976]

Coming from a sport with over 50% being black when barely 10% of the adult male population is black.. I think they can take their clains of racism and shove it..

Sport is a meritocracy, you can play, or you can't.
Poor garkhal, getting his delusions shattered about the superiority of race and claiming racisism when his perception fails.
I think by now it is pretty clear to everyone you are a racist, kindly go away, or grow up, I don't care which.

And we who are being critical of him are using OUR free speech rights to do so.

Critical?
In what way?

Well lets look at it..
Pepsi and coke both tell workers "When on the job you cant consume products of our competitors. When working at say Mcdonalds, you can't wear your uniform and go into a competitors restaurant to eat.
If working at home depot, they have told workers "you can't wear shirts or hats of a political nature while on the job".

How is that "big corps'?

Err, the LAW, the thing we ALL live by says you cannot do it, but the corps have made back door outs to ignore your first amendment rights.

Yes he's seen the inside of a court room. How many times did he get convicted though?
Compare that to the list of Crooks in the NFL..

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/2...ime-felon-team

https://www.usatoday.com/sports/nfl/arrests/

https://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/13/u...r-arrests.html

Convicted?
Look how many times he payed out, they are ALL "convictions", and he has done it many, many times, including against class action suits. Trump Uni screwed more people than your 3 links combined.
You are arguing with a butter knife, and if it need be said, that's not a knife.

[Annoyed]

Err, the LAW, the thing we ALL live by says you cannot do it, but the corps have made back door outs to ignore your first amendment rights.

The Constitution says the government can't restrict your right to free speech. It says nothing about other entities. This message board can choose to block any political discussion, or any other topic it wants to. They could ban discussion about Star Trek, and they would be within their rights. They, nor the NFL, Coke, Pepsi or any other company are the government, so the 1st amendment does not apply.

[Starsaber]

But it is about whether he's president or not.
He is not, and there is no way on God's green earth that a Republican congress with a Republican white house is going to pass or sign it. So it's dead before it gets off the ground.

I don't like the idea of single payer; look how frakked up the VA care system is; you want to turn the rest of the country into the same thing?

Wasn't the VA problem more with the service providers (availability of doctors and facilities) than the payment aspect of it?

I'm sure there would be problems with a single payer system too, but I don't know enough of the specifics of the VA situation to know whether it's a fair comparison or not.

[garhkal]

If they want to pass this, they have to stop shielding the insurance carriers. It's that simple. Why can't they figure that out?

Maybe cause the insurance companies hav them in their back pockets..

Sport is a meritocracy, you can play, or you can't.
Poor garkhal, getting his delusions shattered about the superiority of race and claiming racisism when his perception fails.
I think by now it is pretty clear to everyone you are a racist, kindly go away, or grow up, I don't care which.

Funny, schools should also be entered into based on merit, but cause of affirmative actions and quotas, many asians and others get passed over just so the schools can get more blacks and other ethnicities in them..
So why is it OK for there to be 'racial quotas' for schools, but not sports?

Err, the LAW, the thing we ALL live by says you cannot do it, but the corps have made back door outs to ignore your first amendment rights.

The Constitution says the government can't restrict your right to free speech. It says nothing about other entities. This message board can choose to block any political discussion, or any other topic it wants to. They could ban discussion about Star Trek, and they would be within their rights. They, nor the NFL, Coke, Pepsi or any other company are the government, so the 1st amendment does not apply.

Annoyed said what i was going to.. A company can limit what you say or do at work, and its NOT in violation of the 1st amendment to do so.. For more info check out these links.
http://www.hrexaminer.com/is-there-free-speech-at-work/

http://corporate.findlaw.com/law-lib...revisited.html

Now that is in the 'private sector'. However public sector (meaning those working for the government in some capacity from teachers, to those in the local mayor's office) to have some protections..
https://www.workplacefairness.org/re...blic-employees

Wasn't the VA problem more with the service providers (availability of doctors and facilities) than the payment aspect of it?

I'm sure there would be problems with a single payer system too, but I don't know enough of the specifics of the VA situation to know whether it's a fair comparison or not.

IMO the problem with single payer (like with how the NHS IS) is that you have millions of people drawing ON The resources of it, who never have paid in.. So all those who ARE paying in, get a higher burden.

[Annoyed]

Maybe cause the insurance companies hav them in their back pockets..

Maybe??

[Annoyed]

Wasn't the VA problem more with the service providers (availability of doctors and facilities) than the payment aspect of it?

I'm sure there would be problems with a single payer system too, but I don't know enough of the specifics of the VA situation to know whether it's a fair comparison or not.

It always comes down to money. The govt. just won't pay the prevailing rate for health care services. Even today, many physicians and specialists won't take medicaid patients because of the low re-imbursment rates. If the govt. became the only source of payment, many doctors would just quit, retire, or whatever rather that work for substandard wages. Considering the outrageously difficult training process they have to go through to get their license, I can't say that I blame them, either.

[garhkal]

Well.. Looks like someone has some srious explaining to do..

http://www.chron.com/news/article/We...r-12234571.php

http://www.businessinsider.com/us-ar...mmunism-2017-9

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...es-with-pro-k/

IF he was known to be PRo communism, HOW DID HE Get passed through the backround checks to join west point??

[Falcon Horus]

...many doctors would just quit, retire, or whatever rather that work for substandard wages. Considering the outrageously difficult training process they have to go through to get their license, I can't say that I blame them, either.

If a Doctor only works to get paid, he/she chose the wrong profession. They exist to help people -- all people.

[Annoyed]

If a Doctor only works to get paid, he/she chose the wrong profession. They exist to help people -- all people.

In an ideal, fantasy world, maybe. But in reality, that doesn't work. In addition to the physically grueling training process, as I understand it, the average student debt a doctor graduates with is around $200K. It's not reasonable to expect them to eat that.

That's the real problem with the entire HC system anyway. The providers earn many, many times what the average consumer of their services make, therefore lower income consumers can't afford their services.

As a long term solution in a competitive economy, I don't think forcing people to pay for health care for those who can't afford it is workable.

It would be better to take steps that force wages up so any working stiff can afford it.

[Gatefan1976]

In an ideal, fantasy world, maybe. But in reality, that doesn't work. In addition to the physically grueling training process, as I understand it, the average student debt a doctor graduates with is around $200K. It's not reasonable to expect them to eat that.

Someone sounds like a bleeding heart libbural

That's the real problem with the entire HC system anyway. The providers earn many, many times what the average consumer of their services make, therefore lower income consumers can't afford their services.

So, stop giving them excuses to continue to do it.

As a long term solution in a competitive economy, I don't think forcing people to pay for health care for those who can't afford it is workable.

You don't -have- a competitive economy in the heath care field. Understand -that- first.

It would be better to take steps that force wages up so any working stiff can afford it.

Dear lord, he's a lefty freak!!

[Annoyed]

Originally Posted by Annoyed
In an ideal, fantasy world, maybe. But in reality, that doesn't work. In addition to the physically grueling training process, as I understand it, the average student debt a doctor graduates with is around $200K. It's not reasonable to expect them to eat that.
Someone sounds like a bleeding heart libbural

Huh? You're confused. It's the liberal that would expect the guy/gal who went thru med school to give away his services.

You don't -have- a competitive economy in the heath care field. Understand -that- first.

Our entire economy is (or is supposed to be) a competitive economy. The medical sub-economy operates within that overall environment. But by necessity, it operates much the way the parent does.

Dear lord, he's a lefty freak!!

You know better than that.

[Annoyed]

This question is more for the folks on the right around here. I can pretty much figure the left leaning folks hate it.

The Republican budget proposal.

Sure, it does some things which will help the middle class a great deal. Doubling the personal exemption can reduce the tax owed by lower income folks 40% or more. I rather like that. So no one can claim it benefits the rich only.
A lot of people are screaming about removing SALT, ; the ability to claim deductions for state taxes on the federal return.
Personally, I think that's a good thing. Yes, it hurts the high tax states such as NY and Calif. at this time. But maybe after a few years the people of those states will start demanding that their state governments spend less. That would be a good long term effect.

But I am really not happy with a great deal of the details yet to be determined.
I'm thinking that if they want people to support it, they had better put their cards on the table.

Anyone else highly suspicious?

[SoulReaver]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...ow-SanDee.html

what a POS '_' didn't even know this was legal in that ****hole but it's not that surprising
(in the EU there's a fixed % that goes to the heirs no matter what)
hopefully the victims will contest

[Annoyed]

And why shouldn't he have the right to leave it to whomever he wants?
At least the state won't get it.

[SoulReaver]

And why shouldn't he have the right to leave it to whomever he wants?

yeah man why shouldn't have the right to bring whomever he wants into the world without consequences?