1.6 Billion Rounds of Ammo + 2,717 Military Asssault Vehicles And Nothings Going On?

Grieves

Senior Member
The 'Occupy movement' was not an effective way of changing anything. Many of the 'occupiers' were upper middle class kids that had lost their jobs and such. It was not even an American movement, it came from Canada. They railed against the oil companies, while they camped in 'earth pimple' and wore high tech clothing. They ranted against business, while they used the internet and FB and Twitter to further their 'cause'. I saw them as hypocrites, doing more harm to their 'cause' than help.
That happens to be precisely how the mass media portrayed them.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
That is, to a limited degree, the argument I'm making, yes. There are situations such as extreme rioting where extreme force, perhaps even deadly force is needed. When used, that use of force should endure the most thorough scrutiny to ensure it was absolutely necessary. There's no excuse for the use for extreme force on a non-violent protest action. None whatsoever. And yet extreme force (batons, tear-gass, pepper-spray, ect.) are often employed on people engaged in peaceful protest.
occupy_pepper_spray_AP111118053177_fullwidth_620x350.jpg
When it is, those peaceful protests are made all the more powerful, especially when the force used is peacefully endured. The above protest action is one we'd likely have never heard about had some prick of a Police officer not sprayed them down like weeds. What might have been a more or less ineffectual effort abruptly became an incredibly potent symbol for police-oppression that everyone can understand and no-one can deny, which has gone on to receive global attention. Some crowds don't deserve to be dispersed. It's essential to the health of the nation that some crowds aren't dispersed. If a crowd of common citizens is willing to risk tear-gas, mace, beatings and sound-cannons to remain firm in their peaceful action, and deadly force becomes the only option for authorities to disperse them, then authorities should withdraw and concessions of Government should be made. So long as there's that point where the authorities have to choose between backing down and killing someone, and so long as it remains unacceptable for someone to be killed by the authorities while participating in a peaceful protest, peaceful protest will remain an effective, if not overly powerful tool in combating Government and bringing change.
This machine, described by the LA Warden as 'the Holy Grail of crowd-control', can make peaceful protest rapidly and truly unbearable. If trained Marines can't endure this thing for more than a few seconds, a crowd of civilians, no matter how determined, doesn't stand much of a chance. It has the potential to make peaceful civil unrest in defiance of authority an impossibility, and could give the authorities the ability to switch protest-actions off at their leisure.

Would you agree that it's a great tool for prisons at least? Places where fights quickly get deadly.

I see your argument about it making it "too easy" to disperse crowds. But I don't really think it's going to change the outcome where people are "willing to risk tear-gas, mace, beatings and sound-cannons". It's a highly targeted system, a spot size not much larger than the human body, so really would have little more effect than tear gas on a determined group.
 

Grieves

Senior Member
But where do you draw the line? Should anyone be allowed to set up camp anywhere for any length of time if they claim any political motivation?
That's a difficult call to make no doubt, and the issue is unquestionably a complex one. I think, for example, its bloody shameful that evangelicals go around protesting gay men's funerals and such... but I don't feel the law should put a stop to it either, so long as they're keeping reasonable distance from the bereaved/actual ceremony. I'm not addressing the causes for dispersing a crowd of protestors, sometimes it's justified and sometimes it isn't... what I'm addressing are the methods.

It's a highly targeted system, a spot size not much larger than the human body, so really would have little more effect than tear gas on a determined group.
I understood they could set it at a 'beam' wide enough to effect a relatively large group of individuals? That first video you posted shows a fairly large crowd being driven back all at once, a relatively instant reaction.

Would you agree that it's a great tool for prisons at least? Places where fights quickly get deadly.
I can understand its application in a prison and why it would be very useful. I still don't agree with the fundamental premise of the machine itself, though... and I can think of few settings where such a device would be more open to misuse and abuse than a prison... especially a private prison.
 

SR1419

Senior Member.
I can understand its application in a prison and why it would be very useful. I still don't agree with the fundamental premise of the machine itself, though... and I can think of few settings where such a device would be more open to misuse and abuse than a prison... especially a private prison.


But doesn't the abuse stem from the person- not the machine? Anything can be used to abuse someone...club, gun, water hose, etc...
 

Cairenn

Senior Member.
personally, I HATE the idea that we have 'private' prisons. Not a job for a business, no more that a private fire dept. It follows however, as an outgrowth of private security. As a friend who was cop, said, 'cop wantabes' , the folks that don't pass the police screening get hired by them. YUCK
 

Grieves

Senior Member
But doesn't the abuse stem from the person- not the machine? Anything can be used to abuse someone...club, gun, water hose, etc...
Sure, but I don't think Hiroshima would have happened how it happened if Truman showed up with a sledgehammer instead.
Given the prison-system, especially the private prison-system, is notorious for abusive guard-staff (in-fact a study putting students in the roles of guards and prisoners found the 'guard' students committing abuses against the 'prisoner' students hardly a few days into the experiment, demonstrating the roles themselves highly tempt abuse) I don't see how anything too good could come of giving prison-staff access to a 'pain-machine' that leaves no marks.
 

Oxymoron

Banned
Banned
So your nation is at the mercy of crooks in hundred-thousand-dollar suits, your banks are laundering drug-money and terrorist funds and your courts wont even prosecute them out of fear of the American jobs lost, your nation is about to engage in wide-scale 'austerity measures' that basically amount to the rape of the middle-lower class on the basis of being broke while spending hundreds of billions of dollars on nonsensical wars, but you can't support the occupy movement because they were an obstacle/eyesore for dog-walkers and park-goers?
Priorities.
To each his own I guess.

If it were not so serious, it would be laughable.

I suppose it still is in a farcical manner.

'Ban all protests because we do not want any inconvenience... especially if we do not agree with it'.

Luckily there are still some with some forethought and grit.
 
U

Unregistered

Guest
I see a lot of the usual arguments here. It seems you as a whole won't accept anything until you see an executive order signed by the Pres. stating that the NWO fall plan happens tomorrow at 0500.

Get a clue, this kind of garbage happens very slowly.

I see a LOT of people with their hands in the sand.

Tell me, is that a well thought argument? Just calling the other party wrong?
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
I see a lot of the usual arguments here. It seems you as a whole won't accept anything until you see an executive order signed by the Pres. stating that the NWO fall plan happens tomorrow at 0500.

Get a clue, this kind of garbage happens very slowly.

I see a LOT of people with their hands in the sand.

Tell me, is that a well thought argument? Just calling the other party wrong?

Point out the lack of evidence is a good argument, as is pointing out the bunk, and debunking it, like with the "tanks" aspect of this story.

Where did someone just "call the other party wrong"?
 
1) Grattitude to Mick to vetting the bit about the 2,000+ armored vehicles bit. If I could alter the titel of the thread I would do so and drop that last part abouty the vehicles.

2) The debunking of the vehicles doesn't change the fact that the Federal Government is spending a lot of money it doesn't have and on something it doesn't need. That is unless there is a plan to use that ammo.

Mick - Do you really believe that all of this ammo is just for practice and normall day to day use?
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
1) Grattitude to Mick to vetting the bit about the 2,000+ armored vehicles bit. If I could alter the titel of the thread I would do so and drop that last part abouty the vehicles.

2) The debunking of the vehicles doesn't change the fact that the Federal Government is spending a lot of money it doesn't have and on something it doesn't need. That is unless there is a plan to use that ammo.

Mick - Do you really believe that all of this ammo is just for practice and normall day to day use?

About 99.99% of the ammo is going to be used for training and practice. Normal day-to-day use is nothing. Think about it. How many shots does a DHS officer fire in the line of work in an average year? Even a Police officer? They almost NEVER fire their guns. Some officers go their entire career without ever shooting anyone.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/08/nyregion/08nypd.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

But practice and training can require hundreds of rounds of ammo per officer per year. They are just buying in bulk to save money.
 

JeffreyNotGeoffrey

Active Member
Occupy was good in concept but garbage in execution. Their closest analogue the Tea Party got it right unfortunately. They got people's attention and then set goals to achieve thereby keeping them relevent as they were doing something. I talked to Occupy Riverside. They were a laughless joke. There were either unrealistic goals or nothing at all. They did not try the elective process to bring ballot measures up or get candidates elected. They were idealistic kids with no plans after their extended camping trip.
 

Cairenn

Senior Member.
The Occupy folks, like the Tea Party did have some good points to make.

I wonder how many folks even realized that it was started in Canada?

They often complained a lot about 'big business' while without those businesses, they would not have existed. I remember seeing one 'Stop Big Oil' sign, and in the background, a sea of polyester dome tents.

My best friend was a hippie, in the 60s/70s. When her friends wanted her to move to a commune and FARM with them, she asked them if any of them had ever farmed. They hadn't, her family did, she told them that they were unrealistic and she declined their offer.
 
J

Joe

Guest
The Occupy folks, like the Tea Party did have some good points to make.

I wonder how many folks even realized that it was started in Canada?

They often complained a lot about 'big business' while without those businesses, they would not have existed. I remember seeing one 'Stop Big Oil' sign, and in the background, a sea of polyester dome tents.

My best friend was a hippie, in the 60s/70s. When her friends wanted her to move to a commune and FARM with them, she asked them if any of them had ever farmed. They hadn't, her family did, she told them that they were unrealistic and she declined their offer.
Occupy was started by a bunch of anti capitalist out of Canada (communist like in hippies in communes ) http://www.adbusters.org/campaigns/occupywallstreet atsroturf is what they became .Big union support Obama supported and actually had terrorist . Muderers and rapist and lots of drugs . There were a few good points they had . Just was created as a alternative to the Tea party . Tea Parties main goal Smaller government .
 

Cairenn

Senior Member.
Where is ANY evidence that the administration supported the Occupy movement?

Some drugs yes, but 'Muderers and rapists" and terrorist? What evidence of them are there? I believe there was a couple of nasty incidents, but when investigated, they turned out to be from some homeless that had taken advantage of the movement.
 

JeffreyNotGeoffrey

Active Member
Yeah and Occupy was not Communist. First good luck on pinning the movement down to specific goals. That was one reason why I could not stand them. One simply could not get them to commit to a real direction. It was like herding cats. Also as far as could be surmised without a unifying creed or manifesto, Occupy was socialist not communist. While all Communists are socialist, not all socialists are communist. Please sir before making sweeping assessments give more proof than an opinion. Did Occupy wish to seize ALL of the means of production AND eliminate ALL forms of private property with Occupy being the sole political party? If not then they were not communist. I think many conservatives in the US still use communism and socialism as a boogeyman. 90% of communism is gone, and the vast majority of the West including the USA is some mixture of capitalism tempered by socialism.... bum bum BUUUUMMMMMM.
 
U

Unregistered

Guest
I see you are a person who has to get slapped around before you believe you are in a robbery, lol. The things in which you try to say is Opinion has been debased into that from a solid based fact. You apparently have no idea of History or can not put down those soap opera books you read along with dear abby stories. The information is there to be found, get off your brain that is obviously in your back pocket and stop waiting for informational hand outs and go educate yourself. You will be amazed at the fact of what you will learn. Unless you are a MKultra victim, oops too much information, better yet that was a trigger word that may not have triggered anything. I used it to hopefully have you investigate on your own and as evidence that you claim you need to believe in something, MKultra is a starting point for novices. Rediscover yourself before you say what is opinion or fact.
 

JeffreyNotGeoffrey

Active Member
Well Unreg...
First acquaint yourself with the rules of conduct here so try to get off the soapbox. Second I have a degree in history and almost had a masters. Oddly enough I was pointing out how the right has changed Orwell's definition of fascism as that which is undesireable and replaced it with socialism/communism. The left does this too. However considering I have read source materials, written papers, and presented at discussion roundtables my credentials in history are not in doubt but could have been better.

In the future if you wish to debunk me or others please use evidence. Merely hinting to MKUltra is not proof. Also I would make a rather sad sleeper agent. I work EVERY day, have more than a few health issues and consume a steady diet of psychotropic substances that would impede my abilities as an elite assassin. Also my dog goes everywhere with me and her harness makes quite a bit of noise.
 
J

Joe

Guest
Where is ANY evidence that the administration supported the Occupy movement?

Some drugs yes, but 'Muderers and rapists" and terrorist? What evidence of them are there? I believe there was a couple of nasty incidents, but when investigated, they turned out to be from some homeless that had taken advantage of the movement.
There is plenty of evidence . More like the movement took advantage of the homeless . Pelosi Van Jones and Obama supported the movement also praised it . Google it . Dont ask me to do your homework . If you say my claim is false you need to prove it .
 
J

Joe

Guest
Yeah and Occupy was not Communist. First good luck on pinning the movement down to specific goals. That was one reason why I could not stand them. One simply could not get them to commit to a real direction. It was like herding cats. Also as far as could be surmised without a unifying creed or manifesto, Occupy was socialist not communist. While all Communists are socialist, not all socialists are communist. Please sir before making sweeping assessments give more proof than an opinion. Did Occupy wish to seize ALL of the means of production AND eliminate ALL forms of private property with Occupy being the sole political party? If not then they were not communist. I think many conservatives in the US still use communism and socialism as a boogeyman. 90% of communism is gone, and the vast majority of the West including the USA is some mixture of capitalism tempered by socialism.... bum bum BUUUUMMMMMM.
SocialismCommunism

  • As Economic Theory
  • Centralized government allowed
  • Production and distribution is owned/regulated by this centralized government
  • Distribution of gains according to deeds (quantity and quality of work done.
  • Regulation and ownership by government, but private ownership all right as long as regulated/distributed amongst laborers.
  • Ownership is concentrated primarily to the workers (known as "collective ownership")
  • More people have a say in how the economy operates

  • As Political Theory
  • Socialism in theory applies more to economics but can be practiced in politics.
  • Can co-exist with capitalism. Nonetheless, aims to empower the workers, while minimizing the influence of the upper classes managing.
  • Can co-exist with democracies.
  • Everyone who contributes labor will profit from it. Or anyone within the society who contributes will reap the benefits (i.e., universal healthcare and education to citizens/residents)

  • As Economic Theory
  • No centralized government recognized
  • Production and distribution is through collective ownership by all in community.
  • Distribution of gains according to needs within the community.
  • People work because they want to contribute to overall good of their society.
  • Ownership by all, equally.
  • Less people have a say in how the economy operates.

  • As Political Theory
  • Communism can be applied as an economic, as well as a political, theory.
  • Sees capitalism as a dictatorship. When the working class takes over, all will be balanced and a classless society will emerge. This is the ultimate political goal.
  • Doesn't allow for democracy.
  • Society will be taken care of equally. Whatever is provided to one will be provided in the same measure to another. No personal gain or profit.
Anti capitalist are communist . As in the chart it say socialism and capitalism can coexist not with communist . adbusters were anticapitalist the founders of Occupy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adbusters
 

JeffreyNotGeoffrey

Active Member
Actually Joe I want to retract and apologize. While I am pretty sure an undefined percentage were not advocating a dictatorship of the proletariat (Marx's words), there is a good chance some did. I want to apologize for giving you an impossible task. I do not think there would be a way to prove or disprove the assertion unless we sat in on every committee meeting that each chapter or cell or whatever Occupy groups called themselves. Or hacked all members' social media pages. Either way I stocked up on crazy in Riverside and am in no mood for more. I think we can leave it at that, and that Noam Chomsky is terrible.
 

Cairenn

Senior Member.
To say that the entire Occupy movement is Communist, is just as bad as saying that the Tea Party endorses the KKK. The KKK has glopped it's approval onto the Tea Party and some are members.
 
J

Joe

Guest
Actually Joe I want to retract and apologize. While I am pretty sure an undefined percentage were not advocating a dictatorship of the proletariat (Marx's words), there is a good chance some did. I want to apologize for giving you an impossible task. I do not think there would be a way to prove or disprove the assertion unless we sat in on every committee meeting that each chapter or cell or whatever Occupy groups called themselves. Or hacked all members' social media pages. Either way I stocked up on crazy in Riverside and am in no mood for more. I think we can leave it at that, and that Noam Chomsky is terrible.
Like any movement there were good people even in Occupy . Many Ron Paul people pretty much a younger crowd then the tea party . So Im not saying all were communist or bad . But for some reason the main stream media gave them a pass while condemning the Tea Party . They accused the tea party of being anti-government when we just wanted smaller government . Yet Occupy were filled with Anarchist ?
 
J

Joe

Guest
To say that the entire Occupy movement is Communist, is just as bad as saying that the Tea Party endorses the KKK. The KKK has glopped it's approval onto the Tea Party and some are members.
No they are not , but you asked if anyone knew they started in Canada. They were by anti-capitalist . I can give more examples there were some communist then you can KKK members in the tea party .
 

Cairenn

Senior Member.
All Canadians are not anti-capitalist. I get the impression with you that you tend to see he world in black and white. If someone feels that everyone deserve health care, that means that they are socialists and anti capitalist. Not true. Henry Ford paid his workers MORE than others, because he felt that they should be able to buy the cars they built.
 
J

Joe

Guest
All Canadians are not anti-capitalist. I get the impression with you that you tend to see he world in black and white. If someone feels that everyone deserve health care, that means that they are socialists and anti capitalist. Not true. Henry Ford paid his workers MORE than others, because he felt that they should be able to buy the cars they built.
No you just cant understand English ? I said that Adbusters out of Canada were the anti-capitalist in a previous post not all Canadians . the Quote " They were by anti-capitalist " was referring to Adbusters out of Canada , Heres the quote from my first post which I guess you either didnt read or ? " Occupy was started by a bunch of anti capitalist out of Canada (communist like in hippies in communes )http://www.adbusters.org/campaigns/occupywallstreet " which was a reply to your quote " I wonder how many folks even realized that it was started in Canada?" Maybe its because I know more about Occupy then you .
 
J

Joe

Guest
All Canadians are not anti-capitalist. I get the impression with you that you tend to see he world in black and white. If someone feels that everyone deserve health care, that means that they are socialists and anti capitalist. Not true. Henry Ford paid his workers MORE than others, because he felt that they should be able to buy the cars they built.
Im also in Florida and we get plenty of Canadians as customers at my business . Many awful stories on the healthcare . Canada has 30 million people . less then the entire state of California . Might be a little easier to have national healthcare when you have a smaller population . Is not called healthcare its called being taxed . We all have healthcare in America just some dont pay for theirs like others .
 

Cairenn

Senior Member.
And many do without, until it is either TOO late or a lot more expensive. Diabetes that is not treated can mean dialysis for years. We end up paying $100,000 instead of for medicine that might have cost $500 or a $1000 a year. Instead of the number of expensive machines like MRIs and CAT scans that we need, we have 10 times the number, and so folks are having tests that will not really show anything.

We waste a lot of our health care money. We are not moving to a single payer like Canada either.

Mick, atten, this may need to be removed. I get the feeling that you feel that you have YOURS and that others deserve nothing, even when they had NO control over it. My friend was born with asthma, her step daughter didn't cause her cancer, a young man that played an internet game had been a healthy personal trainer, till a drunk driver hit him and now he can only sit up for a less than an hour at a time.

I see someone with no empathy for others.
 
J

Joe

Guest
And many do without, until it is either TOO late or a lot more expensive. Diabetes that is not treated can mean dialysis for years. We end up paying $100,000 instead of for medicine that might have cost $500 or a $1000 a year. Instead of the number of expensive machines like MRIs and CAT scans that we need, we have 10 times the number, and so folks are having tests that will not really show anything.

We waste a lot of our health care money. We are not moving to a single payer like Canada either.

Mick, atten, this may need to be removed. I get the feeling that you feel that you have YOURS and that others deserve nothing, even when they had NO control over it. My friend was born with asthma, her step daughter didn't cause her cancer, a young man that played an internet game had been a healthy personal trainer, till a drunk driver hit him and now he can only sit up for a less than an hour at a time.

I see someone with no empathy for others.
I see someone that is clueless . We will have singlepayer . Obama doesnt care for you or anyone else When we all have nothing then you will be happy . i could give you plenty of hard luck sad stories . My friend who is diagnosed with throat cancer has no insurance yet even without Obama care he is getting the best care possible . You think the government can do better with healthcare you must be living in a fantasy land . WE will all suffer in the end and people like you will be blamed as healthcare collapses . Yes we waste a lot of money on healthcare you can thank your government and their friends the LAWYERS for that .
 

Cairenn

Senior Member.
Only time will tell, but I don't see it being a single payer system. We will still be paying premiums to the same insurance company.

BTW, will your friend EVER be out debt for his cancer? Or will his family use any estate he has to pay it off? or will he or them just 'walk' the bill and let others pay it?
 

JRBids

Senior Member.
I see someone that is clueless . We will have singlepayer . Obama doesnt care for you or anyone else When we all have nothing then you will be happy . i could give you plenty of hard luck sad stories . My friend who is diagnosed with throat cancer has no insurance yet even without Obama care he is getting the best care possible . You think the government can do better with healthcare you must be living in a fantasy land . WE will all suffer in the end and people like you will be blamed as healthcare collapses . Yes we waste a lot of money on healthcare you can thank your government and their friends the LAWYERS for that .

I don't understand the statement that someone with no insurance is betting the best of care EVEN WITHOUT OBAMA CARE. People get excellent medical treatment in this country. We need healthcare reform not because people can't get good health care, but because IT'S TOO DAMN EXPENSIVE! I paid over $12,000 in premiums this past year and THOUSANDS more in co pays and for treatment that the insurance company does not cover us for. MENTAL HEALTH for one. As for your friend with the throat cancer and no insurance. . . . either they 1. are paying for their treament out of pocket (goodbye house!) or 2. they own no personal property and are paying nothing cause they are broke. If you think health care reform is concerned with changing the quality of health care you are clueless. It has to do with the COST. I'm beginning to think Joe is a retired LI public employee and he's taken his pension and benefits to Florida. Is that it Joe?
 

Cairenn

Senior Member.
I find the difference in the billed amount and what the insurance company agreement is for to be shocking. A hospital will bill someone $500 for a procedure, if you don't have insurance, and they will accept $89 from the insurance company for the same procedure. Now what did it cost?

Some years ago, I was in west Texas and I got a piece of steak stuck in my esophagus. Now this quickly became a major problem, since I couldn't swallow and I was camping out in 100 degree weather. I ended up in the hospital in Amarillo. This had happened before, I told them what the problem was. They insisted on a barium x ray. Now I can't swallow water or my own saliva but they wanted me to swallow barium---DUH what part of --I can't swallow did they not understand. There was only reason for that try at an x ray, it was to run the bill up. I spewed barium all over the x ray room, the equipment and the tech. Of course this arranging this took another 2+ hours and I was getting more and more dehydrated. Then they called a thoracic surgeon, instead of a gastroenterologist to remove it.

A little over a year before this, the same thing had happened in Penn, the bill from Amarillo was over twice what the earlier one had been. Not only that, but the delay, and not calling the correct doctor caused me to take longer to recover from it. I did not have insurance at the time. We were paying on the bill from Penn. and couldn't afford paying on both, unless we stopped eating. When the collection agency called, I told them that we could pay $25 a month, they refused that and were insisting on $200. When one of the callers told me that I should have not went to the hospital, if I couldn't pay the bill, and I pointed out that dehydration is fatal in 36-48 hrs, he told me that I still should have not went to the hospital. Then I was mad, and I decided to just take the hit on my credit rating.

Overcharged, mistreated and then insulted. Yep that is the 'great American Health care system' if you don't have insurance.
 
J

Joe

Guest
Only time will tell, but I don't see it being a single payer system. We will still be paying premiums to the same insurance company.

BTW, will your friend EVER be out debt for his cancer? Or will his family use any estate he has to pay it off? or will he or them just 'walk' the bill and let others pay it?
No most likely from what they are saying he will not make it .So i guess we will pay for it . My premiums have increased since they passed Obama care faster then ever and m HSA now get taxed . As a small business owner I see it only as another nail in the coffin for small businesses . I know many doctors that are planning on retiring because of Obamacare , What then when we dont have enough Doctors ? Youll have to fight with the Illegals in Texas just to see a doctor . Then soon youll have to deal with death panels .
 

Cairenn

Senior Member.
Then why did MANY doctors SUPPORT Obamacare.

Death panels? There was NEVER any death panels. What nonsense. Asking an older person to decide what extent they want lifesaving devices and procedures done, is NOT a death panel.

We have them now. I wonder if your friend with throat cancer might have went to a doctor earlier and be diagnosed and saved from it. Folks now, without insurance, don't have that choice, they have to WAIT until their condition will get them seen in an ER, before they can 'qualify' for treatment.

A lack of insurance is a DEATH panel/sentence to many.

Undocumented workers will not be covered, no wonder you don't like it you believe a lot of claptrap and falsehoods about it.

So you care if your workers are healthy or have insurance.
 

Cairenn

Senior Member.
No person is 'illegal'. They may not be here legally, but a person is NOT illegal.

It doesn't look like gun reform is going to go very far, so you can stop worrying about that.

A survey of a little over 3500 doctors without any details of how they were selected, what specialties they were in and even exactly what they were asked is not a sound survey.

The AMA supported it and I believe they represent a LOT more doctors

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/19/aarp-ama-announce-support_n_506060.html
 
J

Joe

Guest
No person is 'illegal'. They may not be here legally, but a person is NOT illegal.

It doesn't look like gun reform is going to go very far, so you can stop worrying about that.

A survey of a little over 3500 doctors without any details of how they were selected, what specialties they were in and even exactly what they were asked is not a sound survey.

The AMA supported it and I believe they represent a LOT more doctors

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/19/aarp-ama-announce-support_n_506060.html
Most doctors didnt approve of the AMA either supporting it . AMA only profits from it . http://www.theblaze.com/contributions/why-the-ama-endorses-obamacare-but-your-doctor-does-not/ Skeptics will argue that the AMA was forced to endorse the bill, as it previously did over the summer, to maintain its hold on the CPT coding system, which is responsible for an estimated 83% of the AMA’s annual revenues. Of course, many argue that the reimbursement system based upon CPT codes is responsible for much of what is currently wrong with healthcare and that an overhaul of the reimbursement system, to reward efficient care and good outcomes, could save the system billions. Even the Mayo Clinic is threatening to completely end its participation with Medicare because it is losing money by providing efficient, outcome based treatment.A continuation of the current reimbursement system is, by just about everyone’s estimates—unsustainable. But, changing that system could cost the AMA its livelihood.
Does the AMA’s reliance on CPT code revenues create an insurmountable conflict between its own efforts and the interests of its members? As one cable news network says “we report—you decide.”
 
J

Joe

Guest
No person is 'illegal'. They may not be here legally, but a person is NOT illegal.

It doesn't look like gun reform is going to go very far, so you can stop worrying about that.

A survey of a little over 3500 doctors without any details of how they were selected, what specialties they were in and even exactly what they were asked is not a sound survey.

The AMA supported it and I believe they represent a LOT more doctors

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/19/aarp-ama-announce-support_n_506060.html
No they are Illegal Aliens that broke our laws . Try sneaking into Mexico and Living off the state there then we will see how long they keep you in a Mexican jail ." Undocumented Democrats " as Jay Leno says . .
 
Top