COVID19 Factors We Should Consider/Current Events

[Gilead]

Episode 1,897 – Dr. Risch Explains The Crisis Of our Time; Pandemics, Big Tech, And Your Life

Mass Shootings and the Link to Damaged Minds: "There's Something Wrong With Young People"

Mass Shootings and the Link to Damaged Minds: "There's Something Wrong With Young People"

Number of Mass Shootings in America by Year

2017 - 30
2018 - 30
2019 - 31
2020 - 40
2021 - 61
2022 - 230 so far, and we're on pace for 450 by the end of the year.

Dr. Paul Alexander: "They [these lockdowns] may have damaged our society, and we need to look at this very seriously."

Mafia-Style Bribery and Racketeering: Perverse Pharma Kickbacks for NIH Personnel

Mafia-Style Bribery and Racketeering: Perverse Pharma Kickbacks for NIH Personnel

Openthebooks.org discovered $350 million in NIH royalties, dividing up to $21,000 per scientist.

Dr. Naomi Wolf: "What really makes me angry, among all the things that make you angry if you're an American taxpayer, is that they did a FOIA ... but they're so redacted, you really can't follow the money."

truthsocial.com/@VigilantFox/108413806097047372

[Steven Kalin]

The obvious reason to say we need stronger legislation with background checks is to pass laws which expand power of the government to infringe on civil liberties. Of course we already have background checks, but does the average American know this?

It's for the children (we already have numerous programs and spend billions on children).

It's for your health (you have the best access to healthcare in the world even if it's not free).

We need to stop terrorism (the LE and Int communities already found out about it, but nothing was done).

It's emotional decision making on the front, and a mix of expanding powers and pork barrel spending around back. The insane shit people like Kamala Harris say DID work for a very long time. The government can't fix it, but it can put itself in charge of it.

Maybe bring back the mental hospitals, though.

I have a question about healthcare down there. I’ve always been under the impression that it’s user pay, but if you’re poor, public hospitals are common and will take care of you for free. Is this true?

[Mark Rippetoe]

Pretty much true. No one can be turned away from a hospital.

[Logan1]

Costless government services are like green energy; they don't exist. They're still using your tax money to pay someone to do the background checks and either raising taxes or reducing spending on something else to do it.

Convenient background checks will still be a way to fuck with law-abiding gun owners. Right now, my wife and I own a number of guns. On paper most of them are mine, a couple of them are hers. When one of us wants to go shooting or carry a particular gun, we pick it up and take it. When my wife wants to carry the Glock 26 that I bought, from a legal point of view I give that gun to her, she possesses it while she's out carrying it, then when she comes home she gives it back to me. Under "common sense gun laws" that's two background checks required or we're technically breaking the law - which is fine unless she uses that gun in self defense and then we both get charged with firearms offenses. Her self defense claim is probably voided by carrying an "illegal" gun as well.

So, what would we do under these laws if we wanted to stay strictly legal? We do the background checks and divide our guns into mine and hers based on who uses them, with no overlap other than maybe some range use where we're both there. The next hurdle we hit is the requirement that we store our guns securely so that no-one else can get access to them. That's pretty reasonable, and all we have to do is put them in our gun safe. Except we don't. I have to put my guns in my gun safe that my wife is unable to access, and she has to put hers in her gun safe that I am unable to access. Not only do we have to buy a new safe, but if one of us goes out while the other is at home, the one going out can't leave their safe keys at home with the other one.

Of course all of this could be avoided by specific provisions in the laws to exclude people in the same household from having to perform background checks to transfer firearms - but that doesn't seem to be included in any of these proposed laws.



Isn't it curious that almost everyone who wants more gun laws believes that free voter IDs are a bad idea because of the hypothetical person who has no ID and is too busy working to go and get one to vote?

I meant costless to the end user. To be clear, I am not in favor of background checks for private sales. But if they are going to happen, they should be as convenient to the purchaser and seller as possible.

Or you could simply share your family's gun as you have been doing. I started shooting at 4 and began hunting at 6. I was responsible for and had exclusive of a lot of guns starting with a 410 and a 22 long before I "owned" one. Sharing guns with friends and relatives is not the same as transferring ownership. Although I don't like absolutes, I believe there is essentially zero chance that sharing or transferring guns between family members would require a background check.

Even a state like Oregon exempts transfers between family members and temporary transfers for self-defense from background checks. Obviously, there is a liability if you knowingly sell or lend a gun to who is a convicted felon.

I have a question about healthcare down there. I’ve always been under the impression that it’s user pay, but if you’re poor, public hospitals are common and will take care of you for free. Is this true?

"In 1986, Congress passed the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act, which contained the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act. The law requires hospitals to treat patients in need of emergency care regardless of their ability to pay, citizenship or even legal status. It applies to any hospital that takes Medicare funds, which is virtually every hospital in the country."

Reagan's healthcare mandate | Salon.com.

[anticausal]

I have a question about healthcare down there. I’ve always been under the impression that it’s user pay, but if you’re poor, public hospitals are common and will take care of you for free. Is this true?

Urban poor people probably have it best in the US system. They are not turned away, and if they plan on remaining poor they basically have no risk of losing anything through collections. They can just stack medical debt indefinitely. And as long as they live in a city, I'm pretty sure they can find all the free care they need, even (perhaps especially) if they are illegal immigrants. Middle class people are the ones with the real horror stories.

Considering that the American middle class has been under brutal economic attack by the political elite since at least the 90s, I have to assume this is all by design.

[David A. Rowe]

The biggest issue has always been rural hospitals and trauma centers -- too many patients by percentage struggle to pay, and there was some small part of the Affordable Care Act that was supposed to alleviate that.

[Steven Kalin]

Pretty much true. No one can be turned away from a hospital.

And do they not then have to duck collections agencies for the rest of their lives? I’m not judging either way, I just hate arguing with people and being wrong.

[Logan1]

Although most hospitals are required to treat those in need of emergency care, individual doctors aren't required to take on indigent patients. One of the claims of ACA advocates was providing heavily subsidized insurance with minimal or non-existent co-pays to low income individuals was that it encouraged people to visit doctors instead of waiting until something required a hospital visit. Since there was little or no cost for low income individuals to go to the hospital, there was no economic reason for them to wait to make a doctor's appointment when they could go the the ER for free.

In contrast, someone who pays for their own high deductible health plan needs to consider the cost of an ER visit. If one sprains an ankle on Saturday, does he or she spend thousands of dollars to go to the ER or wait until Monday to schedule a doctor's visit. On the other hand, the heavily subsidized individual will get immediate treatment, elastic bandages, crutches and pain meds for little or no cost.

[Mark Rippetoe]

And do they not then have to duck collections agencies for the rest of their lives? I’m not judging either way, I just hate arguing with people and being wrong.

They will settle with you. But would you rather be alive ducking collection agencies, or dead?

[John Watson]

Anyone watching Russell Brand lately?
He used to be kind of a Leftist, but now the Left has been calling him a conspiracy theorist.
I think he's really nailing it.
Well This Is F*cking Terrifying - YouTube