icanhelp1
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Mar 23, 2019
- Posts
- 19,344
You wouldn't know shit from clay.
She has more cerebral capacity in one brain cell than you have in your whole body. You're irrelevant!
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
You wouldn't know shit from clay.
It is right as I said it. The Supreme Court interprets the law as it is now. That law can be repealed, corrected or replaced, but the Court's decision on what the law IS NOW cannot be contradicted.
...
Obviously we're two different nations. It might be that none of these things are possible in SCOTUK or whatever the equivalent is there. I know you don't have a 2a equiv and iirc you can't even have "larger" knives? Still, it's available to you, just a lot harder.
Well, it can, if you're going to push that point.
SCOTUS can be contradicted. As a for instance, that's why all the loons were upset about K being appointed. They assumed he would immediately overturn RvW even though he couldn't care less about it.
It can also be contradicted by a change in law as Dawn states.
Finally it can be contradicted by exercising the 2nd amendment (civil war), although as with K and RvW, nobody really wants that, no matter what they claim on internet pulpits.
Obviously we're two different nations. It might be that none of these things are possible in SCOTUK or whatever the equivalent is there. I know you don't have a 2a equiv and iirc you can't even have "larger" knives? Still, it's available to you, just a lot harder.
Laws don't just change. A suit has to filed and a litigant with standing has to go before the court and argue the case and then a decision is rendered after weighing the constitutionality of the suit. Again a vote and a majority wins. So important to keep politics out of SCOTUS. Activist judges are poison to our judicial system, left or right.
Laws don't just change. A suit has to filed and a litigant with standing has to go before the court and argue the case and then a decision is rendered after weighing the constitutionality of the suit. Again a vote and a majority wins. So important to keep politics out of SCOTUS. Activist judges are poison to our judicial system, left or right.
"Larger" knives. Yes, we can have them. We just can't carry them in a public place or have them easily accessible in a car.
That is a significant change since my youth. As a Boy Scout in uniform I was expected to carry a knife. There were Boy Scout regulations about their use and only certain levels could wear a sheath knife. As a Bushman's thong passed Scout in Australia I was expected to wear a sheath knife and carry either a hand axe or machete. That caused some concern when I attended Buckingham Palace as a car park attendant in Australian Scout uniform wearing a 24 inch razor-sharp machete, but as I gave my word as a Scout that I would not draw or use it - it was acceptable. Almost all of the Scouts present were wearing sheath knives. I can't imagine being allowed to travel on London Transport or going to Buckingham Palace wearing a machete now.
But if a knife-wielding terrorist had attacked that car park? He would have been outnumbered by knife-carrying Scouts.
I remember going to school with my .22 rifle (like many other of the boys) because I was expected to bring something home with me. A rabbit, squirrel or whatever. I think if my grandson did the same today the reaction would be a little different.
That's the process of "changing" law by setting precedent either through normal process or by abusing the system with PACs and activist judges.
Fortunately, we have no activist judges on SCOTUS. Some I do or don't approve of their rulings, but they're generally ruling fairly.
The other way is to get the legislature to change the law. If the change is a Constitutional amendment then it also has to be ratified by the states.
I remember going to school with my .22 rifle (like many other of the boys) because I was expected to bring something home with me. A rabbit, squirrel or whatever. I think if my grandson did the same today the reaction would be a little different.
There are more reports of the U.K.’s National Health System’s collapse, this time featuring horror stories of rationing care for the elderly. Doctors are now sounding alarms bells that seniors with cataracts are going blind as they wait for surgical approval.
The Guardian reported, “Patients who are losing their sight are being forced to wait for months before having eye cataracts removed because of NHS cost-cutting. … The NHS has imposed restrictions on patients’ access to cataract surgery in more than half of England. … The Royal National Institute of Blind People (RNIB) condemned the rationing as shocking. It warned that not treating people with cloudy vision risks them falling and breaking bones, thus costing the NHS more.”...
This is what happens when “the government” is paying for health care — people become the budget. Inevitably, the individual becomes nothing more than a budget item to be deemed worthy … or not.
In England, rationing is established by NHS clinical commissioning groups (CCGs), which determine which procedures have “value.” As an example, “Of the 195 NHS clinical commissioning groups (CCGs) in England, 104 now include cataract removal on their list of ‘procedures of limited clinical value,’ according to research by the Medical Technology Group.”...
Many CCGs have determined hernia repair is no longer something patients can automatically have, while dozens have declared knee and hip replacements as also not necessarily possible, the Guardian said....
Nationalized health care is a scourge only for the poor, middle class and disenfranchised. The rich always have options. An important reminder comes courtesy of Rolling Stones’ frontman Mick Jagger. He went for a checkup prior to his upcoming tour, and doctors found a heart valve problem requiring immediate surgery. Did the famous British singer have his surgery in England? No, he traveled to New York for the lifesaving medical care.
CNS News reported on comments made by Chris Jagger, the singer’s brother, “Speaking with Sunday People magazine, Chris Jagger, 71, said, ‘Mick is doing OK. I spoke to him — he’s good. It just showed up on a scan so it could happen to anybody, you know. … With Mick it came on a checkup. I’ve had a few health issues. At least he has not got to wait in line for the NHS.’ “
Indeed. Too bad the construction workers, and all the not-rich-and-famous of England, still do.
T. Bruce, The fraying edges of universal health care, Washington Times (Apr. 10, 2019).
In May, 4.3 million people in the United Kingdom were on waiting lists for surgery, a 10-year high. Adjusting for population, that would be like having everyone in the state of Florida on waiting lists. Roughly 3,500 British patients have been on hospital waiting lists for more than a year.
More than one in five British cancer patients waits longer than two months to begin treatment after receiving a referral from a general practitioner. In Scotland, fewer than 80% of patients receive needed diagnostic tests -- endoscopies, MRIs, CT, scans and the like -- within three months.
These delays are deadly. An analysis that covered just half of England's hospitals found that almost 30,000 patients died in the past year while waiting for treatment -- an increase of 57% compared to 2013.
In some cases, the NHS has refused to provide treatment at all. In June, NHS England said that it would discontinue coverage of 17 procedures, including tonsillectomies and knee arthroscopies for osteoarthritis patients.
Even when patients receive treatment, the quality of care is poor. Patients in British hospitals are four times more likely to die than in U.S. hospitals, according to an analysis of outcomes from 2,000 similar surgeries conducted by researchers from University College London and Columbia University in New York. Among the more severely ill patients, the disparity was worse; the sickest Brits were seven times more likely to die....
The problem is one of supply and demand. Single-payer systems offer "free" care, so patients have no incentive to moderate their demand for care. But government cannot procure enough supply to meet that demand without bankrupting taxpayers. Government officials' only option is to ration care.
S. Pipes, U.K.'s Healthcare Horror Stories Ought To Curb Dems' Enthusiasm For Single-Payer, Forbes (Oct. 1, 2018).
The family of a Canadian man says the government-run healthcare system failed their son who felt his only option was to die by physician-assisted suicide after his requests for home healthcare were denied....
Wesley Smith, a senior fellow at the Discovery Institute’s Center on Human Exceptionalism, said euthanasia regimes are never about having the option to die, as it is often presented.
“A Canadian man disabled by ALS didn’t want to die now. He wanted to be cared for at home so he could be with his son,” Smith said.
“Nope. The government’s socialized health-care system refused to pay for all the care he needed. But it sure paid to kill him by euthanasia."
Euthanasia and assisted suicide have become increasingly embraced in Canada and has been advertised in hospital waiting rooms....
"MAiD is a medical service in Canada, whereby physicians and nurse practitioners help eligible patients fulfill their wish to end their suffering," one such ad reads.
MAiD is short for the euphemism "medical aid in dying."
B. Showalter,Canada denies home healthcare to ALS patient, pays for assisted suicide instead, Christian Post (Aug. 26, 2019) (emphasis added), citing B.C. man with ALS chooses medically assisted death after years of struggling to fund 24-hour care, CBC (Aug 13, 2019).
Well, interesting, you pull out a very unique and sad case to justify what exactly?
That Single payer health care is a "failure"?
Freedom from government oppression.
Not a failure, illiberal and un-American.![]()
Are you trying to imply that free healthcare ( and ours is not really free, but compared to the amount paid in the US, it is) is government oppression?![]()
As to if our healthcare is "un-American", I really don't care, we both live in countries where any idiot can freely express his/her opinion.![]()
Here is the inevitable reality of state-run health care and what happen when government bureaucrats and bean-counters make your medical decisions for you:
The heart of the problem is that, according to the UK courts' interpretation of the Children Act of 1989, a life of permanent disability and dependency, whether long or short, is not worth living. The UK High Court "root(ed)" its opinion in the ethical guidance of the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health, which asserts that "it is no longer in the child's best interests to continue (living)" in those cases "where the severity of the child's condition is such that it is difficult or impossible for them to derive benefit from continued life." Because of his disability, Alfie's very life was deemed no longer beneficial to him. And therefore it was declared illegal to keep him alive.
This decision reflects a profound, indeed lethal intolerance of dependence and disability. But it is even worse than that. Just as in the Charlie Gard case, the courts here effectively terminated the rights of Alfie's parents, forbidding them to seek transfer to other facilities that wished to care for Alfie. Both Pope Francis and the Italian government pled for Alfie's life, going as far as to make him an honorary Italian citizen and offering air transport to a pediatric hospital in Rome. But the UK government refused.
What began with a hospital's deadly policy against a child with apparently permanent disabilities ended with a shocking totalitarian intervention by the state, annihilating his parents' rights in order to ensure Alfie's demise.
O. Carter Snead, The Alfie Evans case is straight out of a dystopia, CNN (Apr. 29, 2018).