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

J

Joe

Guest
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.
Did you live ? It will get much better when the Government takes over ? ROTFLMAO ! Why didnt you just do it your self like you fix your own car because everyone in the world is a thief to you ? What do you do for a living that makes you better then a doctor or a auto mechanic ?
 

Cairenn

Senior Member.
Did you live ? It will get much better when the Government takes over ? ROTFLMAO ! Why didnt you just do it your self like you fix your own car because everyone in the world is a thief to you ? What do you do for a living that makes you better then a doctor or a auto mechanic ?

I think you missed the point of my post. I was pointing out that the hospital was padding their bill, and that in doing that, they made my care worse.

Why do you keep putting words in my mouth? "because everyone in the world is a thief to you'. I never said that and I believe you know that. (I do do some of my own car repair, after I caught a brake place cheating me).

I don't worship doctors, some are excellent, even inspired, some good, most are competent, and some are lousy. My dad was a pharmacist and I have heard stories of all of those. My 'excellent' doctor left private practice a few years ago because he was sick of having to hire staff, just to deal with the insurance companies. He now works for the VA.

Maybe you should enlarge what you read and get a different perspective on the world
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Maybe you should enlarge what you read and get a different perspective on the world

Unfortunately Cairenn, this appears from the other size as a symmetrical argument, HuffPo seems very biased if you are conservative. You should read The Blaze.
 

Cairenn

Senior Member.
I don't read the HuffPo a lot because of it's bias. I do occasionally read The Blaze, but I think I read Huff Po more often. And I try to fact check either of them. and then I follow the links on the fact checkers---I spend far too much time running down information---
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Amusingly The Blaze had an article that seemed from the photo to be Christians against Chemtrails.

 
Last edited:
J

Joe

Guest
I think you missed the point of my post. I was pointing out that the hospital was padding their bill, and that in doing that, they made my care worse.

Why do you keep putting words in my mouth? "because everyone in the world is a thief to you'. I never said that and I believe you know that. (I do do some of my own car repair, after I caught a brake place cheating me).

I don't worship doctors, some are excellent, even inspired, some good, most are competent, and some are lousy. My dad was a pharmacist and I have heard stories of all of those. My 'excellent' doctor left private practice a few years ago because he was sick of having to hire staff, just to deal with the insurance companies. He now works for the VA.

Maybe you should enlarge what you read and get a different perspective on the world
I do . I do read all angles . Sometimes when trying to prove a point I will post something from the Lefts perspective . Ill agree there are crooks in every field not just used car salesmen and lawyers . :) Sorry i didnt mean to get personal :)
 

Cairenn

Senior Member.
BTW, my Grandfather was one of the bad doctors. Abandoned his family of 5 children while one was still in diapers, to run away with his nurse, that was in the 20s, then got hooked on booze and drugs and he was dead before I was ever born.

Apology accepted
 

Boodles

Banned
Banned
http://m.youtube.com/#/watch?v=vyFkXmx8gxc

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 c p, said, 'cop wantabes' , the folks that don't pass the police screening get hired by them. YUCK

London listed G4S and Serco are aggressively assuming power within this and many other formerly publically controlled areas, globally: health, security and data systems, prisons, customs/border security, increasingly pervasive. They used to just be involved in support services (like sanitation) within departments, but now increasingly control entire sectors from the top down. In Britain right wing think tanks are pushing us into a new wave of privatisation. The current discomfort concerning Serco surrounds their move to take over the judicial system itself! Yes, elements are considering letting Serco runs the court system, they already run the prisons, now they want to play judge and 'jury' too. End to end control. Only a matter of time, many argue, until they control the police force too (which is also up for 'privatisation' via the subcontractual back door). They give me the creeps. Here's an Orwellian infomercial for Serco you may've come across (above).
 

Boodles

Banned
Banned
I still don't see any plan to confiscate weapons. Can you point me at that plan?

I am under the impression fears, be they real or not, of confiscation stem from global rather than national governance. Haven't the documents to hand and am very unfamiliar with processes of law in the US but there are post second world war UN protocols (doubt that's the legal phrase) which UN member states are to ratify or aspire to as signitories, the relevant one here is the total disarmanent of all United Nations citizens. From what I recall reading this was to be a phased step, the next step being the disarmament of national governments, also, and for national military entities to be subsumed within the control of the United Nations peacekeeping army. It is said that President Kennedy signed up the States to some form of memorandum in this regard, and that this has some sort of statutory affect, or rather, is still in the aspirational pipeline, as it were. I have a link to Kennedy's paper somewhere and will fetch it. I was under the impression, from arguably paranoid (or self-determining, depending on your stance) gun-owning Libertarians I follow on Twitter, that this was and still is the secret "globalist, communist" agenda of the Democrats, Obama being viewed as in the same mould as Kennedy. Europeans find all this stuff quite amusing, but then again we're all communists, without guns. Anyway, that was the heat on Twitter among Libertarians I encountered who view leglislation on automatic weapons as a segue toward understated, long-standing global commitments in law.

It is, most probably, entirely true. That is the future. We will all be assimilated, resistance is futile. ;)
 

MikeC

Closed Account
What UN protocols or documents are those? It is a very grand claim to make without actually having any evidence!

There is a treaty recently signed to regulate international arms trade - but it has nothing whatsoever to do with any domestic laws about gun ownership.
 

Boodles

Banned
Banned
What UN protocols or documents are those? It is a very grand claim to make without actually having any evidence!

There is a treaty recently signed to regulate international arms trade - but it has nothing whatsoever to do with any domestic laws about gun ownership.

I haven't made a claim, I responded to a general request for information, by pointing to what I saw being expressed on the Twitter grapevine and a link there to a .pdf containing alleged memorandi from the Kennedy administration, that may or may not still have affect. A bit like Kyoto, great in principle (something Kennedy would also probably have signed up to), but mothballed by successive conservative leaning administrations. Still there though, according to this woman I follow on Twitter. Like the UN itself, should be understood within the context of a tens of millions dying during the war; arguably so, at least. I will fetch the link, think I favourited it on Twitter.
 

MikeC

Closed Account
You ARE making claims - and mentioning sources - bold claims that there ARE these documents - and not very good sources - "someone on twitter".

Trying to avoid controversy by saying "I'm not saying it's true, but...." is a tactic that is common among people who believe something they know to be dubious and who don't want to get into an discussion about it.

But if you mention something on here as existing then you are going to be quizzed.
 

Boodles

Banned
Banned
I also remember, from the time these second amendment fears started arising, an article in the British press concerning the possibility a semantic misunderstanding, among Americans of old, of the legal Latinate with which the American Constitution, following on from the English one, is written and enstrined, means American citizens haven't in fact got a right to bear arms, at all! Quite amusing, if true. I'll fetch that one as well ;)
 

Boodles

Banned
Banned
You ARE making claims - and mentioning sources - bold claims that there ARE these documents - and not very good sources - "someone on twitter".

Trying to avoid controversy by saying "I'm not saying it's true, but...." is a tactic that is common among people who believe something they know to be dubious and who don't want to get into an discussion about it.

But if you mention something on here as existing then you are going to be quizzed.

Okay, I've pointed to anothers claim regarding Kennedy, perused an extremely lenghty document, and have made a slight semantic error in my statement by being definitive about a UN protocol of old, the detail of which I am uncertain. I am certain this woman linked to a domestic document of Kennedy's that in someway relates to some form of UN mandate, but as stated, am not a legal professional so I can not interpret the significance of such.. You hopefully got the jist of my emphasis. I will fetch if I can.

I am also writing with my tongue firmly in my cheek when I speak of libertarianism, guns and such like, but serious about the memorandum, nonetheless.
 

Cairenn

Senior Member.
The
Okay, I've pointed to anothers claim regarding Kennedy, perused an extremely lenghty document, and have made a slight semantic error in my statement by being definitive about a UN protocol of old, the detail of which I am uncertain. I am certain this woman linked to a domestic document of Kennedy's that in someway relates to some form of UN mandate, but as stated, am not a legal professional so I can not interpret the significance of such.. You hopefully got the jist of my emphasis. I will fetch if I can.

.

I have yet to see an EVIDENCE of your statements. You seem to post opinions and they say 'someone on Twitter' said it.

What the heck are you referring to as "legal Latinate"
There is NONE in the 2nd amendment

 

Boodles

Banned
Banned
The


I have yet to see an EVIDENCE of your statements. You seem to post opinions and they say 'someone on Twitter' said it.

What the heck are you referring to as "legal Latinate"
There is NONE in the 2nd amendment


Yes the constitution itself is in the formal legal language of the preceding English constitution. All legal language in England (across Europe in fact) having been written in Latin, and later in English here with elements of Latinate sentence structure strictly adhered to. That is, the emphasis is on the first item, and all subsequent items refer back to the first item. It is not a list of two rights, a militia 'and' a right to bear arms, it is the right to a 'militia'. This is what shall not be infringed. Following the formal rules of legal English, the amendment refers not to any right to bear arms, at all, unless you're in the home guard. It has been sibverted due to misunderstanding of Latinate sentence structure, this was the concern contended by a number of scholars in England a few months back, after your government raised concerns over deaths by semi-automatic weapons. Were it to have been the case it would be astounding. I did not study Latin, please don't shoot the messenger, it is the view of a number of academics. In either case it is confusing drafted English isn't it?
 

Cairenn

Senior Member.
I hate to tell you but many folks here feels it means a home guard. The problem is not the language it is the difference in times. At that time any man entitled to vote was in the militia. That is before the time of large standing armies.

I know I'm a lady, but I have a strong interest in military history.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
I think the interpretation of the 2nd is pretty much settled now, just some haggling over where to draw the line.
 

Boodles

Banned
Banned
Aside the grammar pointing to militia only, the arms are also meant in the military sense only, as would logically follow. Gun ownership is woven into the fabric of American identity and notions of freedom and liberty, espoused by increasing numbers (the internet is saturated with gun rights being conflated with French revolutionary motifs) how strange it not an inalienable right at all, infact "unamerican". Cairenn in terms of Twitter, military history, documents, protocols for disarmament etc that I mentioned earlier. Couldn't find the Twitter link and had exceeding difficulty finding the Kennedy protocol, or the exact one (I now think there are five). Concerned a 1961 Treaty for total disarmament of the world and the abolition of all national armies.

The distinction between military arms as opposed to civilian arms impacts the point I was making there too. Most of what I could find was on the military level, but total disarmament also covered smaller weapons, small arms, too. Kennedy's Treaty is still in effect, pathed the way for where we are at with the Democrats, I suspect, via the UN. I see the ban on semi-automatic weapons echos mandates issuing out of UN bodies, bodies that have evolved from Kennedy's total disarmament, total abolition of national armies treaty (you can tell I've forgotten the title). I will fetch some links this time, can't find the series on civilian arms as of yet.
 

Drew

Active Member
Yes the constitution itself is in the formal legal language of the preceding English constitution. All legal language in England (across Europe in fact) having been written in Latin, and later in English here with elements of Latinate sentence structure strictly adhered to. That is, the emphasis is on the first item, and all subsequent items refer back to the first item. It is not a list of two rights, a militia 'and' a right to bear arms, it is the right to a 'militia'. This is what shall not be infringed. Following the formal rules of legal English, the amendment refers not to any right to bear arms, at all, unless you're in the home guard. It has been sibverted due to misunderstanding of Latinate sentence structure, this was the concern contended by a number of scholars in England a few months back, after your government raised concerns over deaths by semi-automatic weapons. Were it to have been the case it would be astounding. I did not study Latin, please don't shoot the messenger, it is the view of a number of academics. In either case it is confusing drafted English isn't it?

I've encountered this Latinate, clause-based argument before, and think it's plausible that that was essentially the original intent of the language. There's even considerable debate about the ambiguity caused by the placement of the commas separating the clauses.

But the question is largely an academic one. Much like how the UK's "constitution" (such as it is) doesn't depend solely on a specific document or documents, but also on an evolving set of codifications, customs, judgments, and precedents, two centuries of American constitutional jurisprudence have indisputably established a personal right to bear arms beyond whatever was initially described or intended by the framers of the Second Amendment.
 

Boodles

Banned
Banned
I still don't see any plan to confiscate weapons. Can you point me at that plan?

Arguably, I think it all starts right there, 50 years ago. Series 5, there are others, within various jurisdictions. From these beginnings evolve the current frameworks for confiscation and irradication of weapons, at New York HQ.

The United States Program for General and Complete Disarmament in a Peaceful World

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE
DEPARTMENT OF STATE PUBLICATION 7277
Disarmament Series 5, 1961

http://dosfan.lib.uic.edu/ERC/arms/freedom_war.html
 

Boodles

Banned
Banned
An evolving set of codifications, customs, judgments, and precedents, two centuries of American constitutional jurisprudence have indisputably established a personal right to bear arms beyond whatever was initially described or intended by the framers of the Second Amendment.

Nicely worded :) There's obviously two competing tendencies, that personal right you mention, or redefining of the constitutional right, is clear but exists within a more dominant trend toward demilitatisation and disarmament of nations, such as what was orchestrated by Kennedy in the link I put up above this. Moon rules the tide. The world is rife with paranoia. Perhaps the increasing discomfort Americans feel with the seeming militarisation of police and homeland security can be seen within this context; as the power and presence of the military lessens at home and is subsumed within UN control, in far flung reaches, so the requirements of a compensating police orientated state gradually become more evident.
 

MikeC

Closed Account
Arguably, I think it all starts right there, 50 years ago. Series 5, there are others, within various jurisdictions. From these beginnings evolve the current frameworks for confiscation and irradication of weapons, at New York HQ.

The United States Program for General and Complete Disarmament in a Peaceful World

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE
DEPARTMENT OF STATE PUBLICATION 7277
Disarmament Series 5, 1961

http://dosfan.lib.uic.edu/ERC/arms/freedom_war.html

there is nothing at all in that document about individuals bearing private arms - it refers solely to states and their agencies - armies, etc.
 

JRBids

Senior Member.
Arguably, I think it all starts right there, 50 years ago. Series 5, there are others, within various jurisdictions. From these beginnings evolve the current frameworks for confiscation and irradication of weapons, at New York HQ.

The United States Program for General and Complete Disarmament in a Peaceful World

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE
DEPARTMENT OF STATE PUBLICATION 7277
Disarmament Series 5, 1961

http://dosfan.lib.uic.edu/ERC/arms/freedom_war.html



Seems to be about eliminating war by disarmament. Was there something in there about confiscating handguns or hunting rifles or other weapons? I didn't see it.
 

Boodles

Banned
Banned
there is nothing at all in that document about individuals bearing private arms - it refers solely to states and their agencies - armies, etc.

I understand that. It isn't the one I originally refered to, just offered in lieu and as a pointer to the general move to disarmament and how this is a response to higher jurisdictional UN mandates. In this particular aspect I believe the likes of Alex Jones are quite correct. There are bits and pieces in public law related to that original Act that refer to small arms. There are caveats leaving the definition of other arms open to broad interpretation. I'm also taking into account the fact that the second amendment can be misinterpreted, as I said (was it not taken to have been misinterpreted in District of Colombia?). Off the cuff but I am of the opinion private gun ownership will become more and more stringently regulated as the power of the gun lobby to affect national policy wains under the, I don't know, primacy, of higher jurisdictional international law. Most guns will go, just a matter of time. When I say go, I mean go into the hands of the police, of course.
 

Boodles

Banned
Banned
Seems to be about eliminating war by disarmament. Was there something in there about confiscating handguns or hunting rifles or other weapons? I didn't see it.

No, well, it is hard to draw much from one paper alone as the lawful definition of terms, and related papers, are shrewn across various corners of the dark net, government portals and seemingly wacko sites with liberty neurosis (to coin a phrase).
 

JRBids

Senior Member.
No, well, it is hard to draw much from one paper alone as the lawful definition of terms, and related papers, are shrewn across various corners of the dark net, government portals and seemingly wacko sites with liberty neurosis (to coin a phrase).


Well, the one you posted didn't make your point at all.
 

MikeC

Closed Account
No, well, it is hard to draw much from one paper alone as the lawful definition of terms, and related papers, are shrewn across various corners of the dark net, government portals and seemingly wacko sites with liberty neurosis (to coin a phrase).

You cannot have it both ways - if it is hard to draw much from it then how is it that you draw so much from it??:confused:
 

Boodles

Banned
Banned
Shall I nip this is the bud? I take your point, it is a fair point, I concede. To reiterate, that document is not the one I was originally refering to. I can not find the original one, am on a cell phone with no desktop, it is a cumbersome exercise trailing data. I have asked the person who linked to the memorandum of Kennedy's to source it. Insofar as the Act above is concerned I have not interpreted anything from it other than the fact is an an Act drawn up to bring US national policy initiatives concerning disarmament in line with higher jurisdictional initiatives, to rid inconsistency. Alarmists point to Stage 3, the irradication of all weapons. I think it is the penultimate paragraph. And once again, the definition of lawful terms are not there, and it is partial. I also made the initial point of that paper of Kennedy's I linked to being a starting point, at US national level, and how UN bodies to which that Act was responding have now evolved from there into manyfold areas concerning weapons and are now fully engaged in the business of at least being seen to attempt to iradicate all weapons from the planet, with the exception of those in the hands of lawful authorities , which goes full circle, back to the concept of the paper, above. That is the erhmn... noble aim (or communitarian agenda, depending how you view control).

I think it is valid to draw attention to the fact that whilst Americans debate constitutional issues, for instance , over weaponary and the second ammendment, constitutional law is rightfully understood by many to have been effectively and long since nullified by the supremacy of international protocol. To be flippant, national governance is an illusion.

Same with Kyoto. Sign up, ratify, or isolate oneself, no problem, the world moves on. I think President Obama is a pragmatic man much as Kennedy was, understands the moon rules the tide.
 

Cairenn

Senior Member.
I would like to see that link when you can find it.

http://ratical.org/ratville/JFK/HWNAU/JFK061063.html

http://www.jfklibrary.org/Asset-Viewer/DOPIN64xJUGRKgdHJ9NfgQ.aspx

Are you saying that

General and Complete Disarmament includes personal weapons? I cannot find any thing that implies it does, it seems to refer to conventional arms of nations.
 

MikeC

Closed Account
The problem is probably with section (c) in this:

while every other section/paragraph mentions only states, armies, etc., section (c) does not and so I can see how someone might be persuaded to think it means disarming everyone.

but even then it does not - it is talking about the manufacture of arms, not possession, so the document still allows for the civil possession of these "agreed types" by civilians in its "disarmed world".
 

Jazzy

Closed Account
The difference between a protest and a riot is often one authorities fail to see however.
Especially when rioters use protests to operate within.

What chance does protest have of ever proving truly effective again if we allow our authorities to employ technologies which allow them to decide 'that's enough of that', push a button, and send everybody packing no matter how righteous the cause/how determined they are?
It wouldn't be impossible to hard-wire areas like advertisement hoardings, telephone structures, etc., to create large overlapping areas of a city which at the touch of a button would have to be vacated. People lying unconscious might well get killed.

How many decades before there's a miniature version of this thing set up on every third lamp-post, allowing full-spectrum pacification of entire communities? Two young guys break out into a scrap? ZAP. Some kid smoking dope on a street corner? ZAP. A drunk taking a leak in an alley? ZAP. Probably sounds like a science-fiction scenario, right? If you'd told someone 30 or 40 years ago that the near entirety of the UK would be under video-surveillance, they'd have thought the same thing.
I suppose "non-lethal" is an improvement on "lethal", but unfortunately everything "non-lethal" is sometimes "lethal" due to circumstance (eg. tasers). A GLUE might suffocate.

"Laughing Gas" is explosive, unfortunately, when mixed with air. Some other euphoriant might work. I'd turn up for that. :)
 

Cairenn

Senior Member.
Really, "near entirety of the UK would be under video-surveillance"? Isn't that a bit of an overreach? Urban areas, yes, rural ones I doubt it. Suburban ones, how much?


If the entire country was under surveillance, then crimes should be very easy to solve. They could easily look and see who entered '54 Orwell St', or at least who disappeared from the public areas at the time of the crime. Since that is not so, it would seem that the video surveillance is no where as complete as you think it is.
 

Grieves

Senior Member
Visit the UK Cairenn, and you'll very rapidly learn just how prevalent the video surveillance is. It's quite a strange experience actually, roaming ancient streets on which every building is likely older than my country, and seeing a couple of rather high-tech cameras hanging from the edge of each roof. They don't 'solve every crime' because video surveillance has inherent limitations, especially in a country where its constantly raining. Umbrellas and hoodies aren't conducive to identifying people on video. The surveillance taking place in the UK these days is extreme, and you should do a bit of research on it yourself if you want a better understanding of that.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Cairenn

Senior Member.
I have quite a few Brit friends, so I know that there are a lot

While that is a lot, your statement "near entirety of the UK would be under video-surveillance" is an exaggeration to say the least.
 
Top