[J m HofMarN]

http://www.msnbc.msn...cs-white_house/

So, to inform those of you who come from non-crazy countries, let me explain: our constitution allows americans the freedom to bare arms, and the right to tell our elected officials how much we hate them. Unfortunately no where does it say people should not be allowed to bare arms while telling our elected officials how much they hate them. So, the new fun thing to do to intimidate our president is to form a group of gun toting right wing thugs and wander around wherever he is saying how much they hate him.

It's awesome how gun rights people believe that the right to own a gun is protected in every situation. I'm surprised they haven't started to want to bring them into their whacked out ultraconservative churches. The left in this country has been obsessed with the issue of gun control for entirely too long, and this action makes it abundantly clear. How long will it be until there are enough of these nut jobs to storm a building and have a go at a prot-fascist coup? Progressives and liberals need to arm themselves to fend off this kind of intimidation.

[Gobbler]

Shouldn't they focus more on disarming the other side?

[Spoon Poetic]

Yeah, I find it kind of humourous that gun rights is one of the only things left that the states can choose their own laws concerning. I do agree with the right to bear arms (as well as bare arms, as I do love my tank tops) but I also believe in certain forms of tight gun control. I also believe in the right to peaceably protest. But I don't think that carrying guns into this protest made the point they wanted to make. In fact I think they just killed their own message by being fucktards.

This post has been edited by Spoon Poetic: 18 August 2009 - 03:23 PM

[civilian_number_two]

In a strange reversal of expectations, I will say that I don't have a problem with that. Only the most crazed anarchist would try to shoot at the President from a designated viewing area in full view of other well-armed civilians, not to mention the Secret Service. So the more guns people are carrying at those things, the safer the President is. The number of folks who would be killed in the ensuing chaos and gunplay of course would be astonishing, but that's the price of liberty you see. Freedom is not bought at the cost of the lives of soldiers abroad; it is bought at the cost of civilian lives to petty crime and collateral gunplay.

I would have a problem with it were it happening in Canada of course, because that would mean a reversal of decades of sensible legislation regarding carrying firearms in public. But in the US, where carrying firearms is to you guys what legalizing Gay Marriage and the de facto legalization of Marijuanna was to us, of course you should be able to carry guns to a public meeting where the President was in attendance. And the fact that these folks didn't pull this shit when Bush was in charge and pulling civil liberties away from y'all with both hands, well that's just a coincidence.

Just a warning to any dumb fuck who actually does think to shoot at the President: remember Rodney King? I remember Rodney King. That shit was nothing.

[J m HofMarN]

damn fine William McKinley reference there, Civ... but I don't think anyone else got it. This looks even worse when you realize that Obama is actually getting more than four times the number of death threats Bush got. I really don't get the deal wherein the ability to pay exorbitant sums for substandard healthcare is a more cherished right than, say, habeaus corpus or not getting things rammed up your ass by CIA interrogators, but then I'm a silly liberal. What reall irks me is that the second ammendment has, until now, been looked upon with at least some logic. Now it's turning into a very slightly more grown up version of the game wherein you point your finger at your sister and repeatedly say "I'm not touching you" whereas this game is called "I'm not assassinating you".

The Secret Service has to deal with this crap, and that really pisses me off considering what a hard job they already have. I'm waiting for someone to bring a sniper rifle with the words "This is my obama shooting gun" written on it and continue to claim that they're just excercising their rights. This is blatant intimidation and the government really needs to pass some common sense laws. No, the second ammendment doesnt allow people to take a gun anywhere. There are some places where guns should not be. And given the fact that Obama hasnt even mentioned gun control, I don't see any other reason to have guns at his event other than trying to scare people.

[Spoon Poetic]

Nobody else got it?? How about, nobody else even saw it yet. Was only two hours between your posts, dude.

But I agree. This was stupid and irresponsible and guns have no place at a "peaceable" protest. And their "statement" was out of place. A law that says no guns at political events (unless you're security or whatever) kinda makes sense. Whereas I'm all for the right to bear arms, and states making use of their own governments / making their own decisions, I think a federal law that prohibits guns in a few situations (no matter what the states' gun laws are) definitely make sense.

I just want to know what was going through these dumbnuts' heads. "I don't want socialist healthcare so I'm going to show them that I have the right to tote a gun?" What??

[civilian_number_two]

Hey so I have a question: if a right-wing gun nut fires an assault rifle into a crowd to protest socialist health care, and several people in the crowd struck by stray bullets don't have any insurance, who pays to treat their injuries? Is it the insurance of the guy who did the shooting, or are they SOL? Are they treated at all, or do they just go septic unless they agree to pay all medical costs, and then later sue the estate of the now-dead lunatic? Or do they have to sue the government? Can they sue anyone, or do they just not get treatment?

Follow-up: why is it that everything in the US comes down to having to sue someone? Where are your taxes going?

[azerty]

The victims won't get free doctors, but if the shooters are unable to pay for a lawyer, a lawyer will be provided free of charge by the state. The beauty of it all!!!

[Spoon Poetic]

That's not how it works. American healthcare might not be great but we aren't just leaving people in the streets to die because they can't afford the ambulance ride.

In fact, you will be treated unless you refuse treatment and if you refuse treatment you have to fill out paperwork that means you won't hold the emergency personnel responsible for whatever happens to you since you refused treatment.

Hospitals are required to provide life-saving and stabilizing services no matter if there is money to pay the bill or not.

However, you will then be billed.

The way I understand it is, you are required to make payments on that bill, but those payments can be as little as pennies per month, if that's what you can afford. (There are also other options such as applying for a hospital sponsorship, which means the hospital will forgive your bill or a portion of it.) If you make no attempts at setting up a payment plan or if you miss several payments and don't jump through all the right hoops, they will send collectors after you, and take you to court, and all that crap.

So those people that get shot at the protest will get treated, since even if they were shot in a nonfatal place, if they are left untreated they could bleed to death or get a life-threatening infection. But someone will have to pay those bills later. And it won't be the shooter's insurance because health insurance doesn't work like car insurance where if you do the damage it's coming out of your pocket. (Unless of course the injury is from a car accident, in which case the offender's auto insurance pays the medical bills as well as the bill to fix/replace the car.)

So that's where the suing comes in. You can sue for damages to get your bills covered, as well as sue for punitive damages for the pain you had to endure. And that's why America is so sue-happy when it comes to being injured - because it's unfair to have to pay your own medical bills when the only reason you got hurt in the first place is because someone did it to you.

I'm pretty sure I have all this right. However, it mostly comes from experience instead of research - and when you're in that position yourself you tend to be too panicked to get everything completely right, so I might be off on a few details.

[J m HofMarN]

In the US, the victims can sue the government, the gun companies, the shooter, the shooter's psychiatrist, and probably you for asking about it. The shooter can also sue the gun company. The gun company could sue the victims for getting in the way of its bullets, but they generally dont. Also, anyone who was nearby could sue anyone else for emotional trauma, as could anyone who saw it on tv. And if a surprised McDonalds customer sees it on the news and spills her coffee, she can sue for the approximate price of the entire world, as per stare decisis.

Spoon- True, I didnt check time stamps.

And as for your statement, the problem there is that certain things dont qualify as life saving that still effect quality of life. For instance, impacted molar, so forth. Also, you just did a pretty good job of explaining how the public has to cover the costs of the uninsured medical bills through higher cost for care and so forth that the hospitals and such employ to make up for the losses they soak when caring for those that cant pay.

This post has been edited by J m HofMarN: 19 August 2009 - 10:49 PM

[Spoon Poetic]

You're exaggerating a bit, Jm - most times those cases get thrown out, I mean things like the shooter suing the gun company and what-not. You *can* sue them but it won't make it to the docket. That McDonald's thing was a fluke.

And I'm not sure if you were giving me a compliment or trying to argue a point with me that I already agree with...? Yes, all of that is why the cost of healthcare is higher here than in other countries. We have larger overhead and everything else because the system is broken. So even if it's not taxpayer dollars directly going towards paying the uninsured, we pay for it in other ways.

If you have cancer, I recommend moving to Europe.

Edit: Upon some quick research, I found that the McDonald's coffee thingy was actually not how everyone understands it. The coffee was entirely *too* hot - gave her 3rd degree burns. It'd have to pretty much be boiling, which is not the temperature you're supposed to serve coffee at. So it's not exactly the example of frivolous suing that everyone seems to think it is. Interesting tidbit.

This post has been edited by Spoon Poetic: 19 August 2009 - 11:21 PM

[civilian_number_two]

Yeah, we discussed the coffee thing here once before. Water can get a maximum of 100 degrees, but generally coffee is drunk at about 70. McDonald's wanted ts drive-through coffee to remain hot by the time it reached its destination, so they were serving it at about 85. McDonald's did provide a warning on its cup, and rival companies sold coffee at about the same temperature. Stella Liebeck removed the lid of her coffee while seated in her car to add sugar and cream and so forth, and for sopme reason (I believe because the car was still moving), she spilled a great deal of the coffee in her lap.

Stella is an old woman, and her skin was thinner than yours or mine. She did not react quickly enough to separate her clothing from her skin, ie stand up and so forth, due to the specific situation she was in, seated in a car with a seat belt on. The bulk of what she could have done to mitigate the damage to herself she failed at. Stella sufferd burns requiring skin grafts. Her medical bills were something like $11000. She asked McDonald's to pay her $20000. McDonald's, fearing a flood of similar claims, refused (they offered $800) and she was required to sue. Naturally her lawyer wanted to add punitive damages and so forth.

The trial was apparently where McDonald's failed. Jury trials are a farce to begin with, but in this one it was a perception sent by the defence that got the ball rolling to where this became the most legendary civil case in recent memory. Apparently the McDonald's corporation showed up with 6 or 7 lawyers to Stella's one, and their attitude was condescending. The straw, apparently, and I don't know how much of this is legend, is that one of the lawyers suggested that the damages weren't that serious because, owing to her age, superficial skin damage to her groin area wasn't about to affect her quality of life. Meanwhile Stella's lawyers used some spurious data to suggest that injuries could be reduced by a calculable amount if McDonald's had responded to numerous prior complaints. It was also worth noting that McDonald's had paid much better on prior claims, at least one for more than $500000.

The jury awarded $160000 in compensatory damages and $2.7M in punitive damages. The judge threw these figures at a wall and awarded her only the portion that bounced back, according to yankee tradition. The undisclosed final settlement was less than $600000, which is still pretty legendary.

When we discussed this before, I supported Stella's case, citing the urban legend that McDonald's coffee was hotter than any other coffee being sold. However I agreed she was paid off too well, owing to the usual nonsense of trial by jury. I lean more in favour of the corporation now, but think that much of this might have been avoided had Stella not received a bill for $11000 from her hospital. Since her hospital bill is equal to about 3 seconds of military action in Iraq, I maintain that your government is misspending your tax money. You have ten times the country we have, and ten tims the tax revenue. You are the wealthiest nation on the planet and you can't pay for health care?

The rhetoric in your country is that socialised health care is a step toward a welfare state and hence, Nazis. The rhetoric always avoids other Nazi comparisons, such as giant armies, numerous central police oprganizations, and laws allowing arrest without charge, unlimited confinement, denial of legal defence, and torture. Of course these are other topics, but if none of that is leading towards totalitarianism (because the folks in Arizona carrying their guns about in public, will protect you from it!), really, how is socialised medicine going to do it?

[Spoon Poetic]

Interesting about the Mickey D's thing. I don't remember discussing it; guess it was before my time.

I think unless someone starts playing devil's advocate this thread is going to die from lack of dissenting opinions, which might be a first... And sometimes I do the devil's advocate thing but to be honest I don't feel like it today.

[Otal Nimrodi]

Alright, I can try the devil's advocate, but I REALLY can't think of a good reason for it all.

[civilian_number_two]

What about FREEDOM?