My state already is using almost the same plan as....sm

• physicians - obama's plan?
  • No one in my family ever waited on a mile long list - Not so. From a Canadian
    • did your relatives - have
      • Waits for elective surgery yes, urgent surgery no, like anywhere. nm - oldtimer
  • From what I understand Canada's healthcare...sm - oldtimer
    • And he's going to accomplish this how? - sm
      • Don't expect any answers from O lovers on this - board....they don't have them......sm
      • He is going to accomplish this by - - Amanda
        • Pie in the sky talk - no way
        • Lemme get this straight... - equineluvr
          • you have the option of choosing it too - - Amanda
        • The concept is similar to any group plan. - The more who sign up, the lower the cost...sm
          • Those prices are OUTRAGEOUS! Bad plan, Obama! - sm
        • I'm curious about this - ...
          • Like I posted above, this is flat out false - stuff he has told you......sm
          • Full coverage based on income for people whose...sm - oldtimer
            • full coverage for how much - ? n/m
            • And then, that employer who does not - provide his employee
              • Interesting....and I suppose Obama will define - what is a small business?
              • If it is a small business, then it is exempt from this - nm - Amanda
              • With all the incentives, tax credits, encouragement and - support for small businesses...sm
                • his plan for healthcare - see link inside - - Amanda
                  • Wait - he wants to monitor health care? Like he monitored Wall Street? Pass. - nm
                • Encouragement and support???. - Please explain, I know
                  • More on O's plan for - small businesses. sm
      • My state already is using almost the same plan as....sm - oldtimer

The messages you are viewing are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select the boards given in left menu

Two Border State Governors Declare Illegal Immigration State of Emergency

SIGN THE PETITION!
CLICK HERE!

THANK YOU!

Many people were confined against their will just because someone wanted them "out of the way." These were normal people with no mental illness - that is why it is so difficult - don't blame the liberals. Blame your state.

CONFINING THE MENTALLY ILL


In the legal space between what a society should and should not do, taking action to restrict the liberty of people who are mentally ill sits in the grayest of gray areas.

Our notions about civil and constitutional rights flow from an assumption of "normalcy." Step beyond the boundaries and arrest and prison may legally follow. Short of that, government's ability to hold people against their will is severely and properly limited. Unusual behavior on the part of someone who is mentally ill is not illegal behavior. Freedom can't be snatched away on a whim, or on the thought that a person is hard to look at, hard to hear, hard to smell.

It was only a few decades ago that the promise of new medications and a change in attitude opened the doors of the mental hospitals and sent many patients into society. There, they would somehow "normalize" and join everyone else, supported by networks of out-patient facilities, job training, special living arrangements and regular, appropriate medication. But the transition has been imperfect, long and difficult.

In some parts of urban America there is little professional support for those with mental health problems. A new generation of drug and alcohol-fueled mental illness has come on the scene. People frequently end up on the street, un-medicated and exhibiting a full range of behaviors that are discomforting at the very least and threatening at their worst.

Written last Thanksgiving:  "Some would argue that two different nations actually celebrated: upright, moral, traditional red America and the dissolute, liberal blue states clustered on the periphery of the heartland. The truth, however, is much more complicated and interesting than that.

Take two iconic states: Texas and Massachusetts. In some ways, they were the two states competing in the last election. In the world's imagination, you couldn't have two starker opposites. One is the homeplace of Harvard, gay marriage, high taxes, and social permissiveness. The other is Bush country, solidly Republican, traditional, and gun-toting. Massachusetts voted for Kerry over Bush 62 to 37 percent; Texas voted for Bush over Kerry 61 to 38 percent.

So ask yourself a simple question: which state has the highest divorce rate? Marriage was a key issue in the last election, with Massachusetts' gay marriages becoming a symbol of alleged blue state decadence and moral decay. But in actual fact, Massachusetts has the lowest divorce rate in the country at 2.4 divorces per 1,000 inhabitants. Texas - which until recently made private gay sex a criminal offence - has a divorce rate of 4.1. A fluke? Not at all. The states with the highest divorce rates in the U.S. are Alabama, Arkansas, Arizona, Florida, Georgia, Mississippi, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina, and Texas. And the states with the lowest divorce rates are: Connecticut, Massachusetts, Maine, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, and Vermont. Every single one of the high divorce rate states went for Bush. Every single one of the low divorce rate states went for Kerry. The Bible Belt divorce rate, in fact, is roughly 50 percent higher than the national average.

Some of this discrepancy can be accounted for by the fact that couples tend to marry younger in the Bible Belt - and many clearly don't have the maturity to know what they're getting into. There's some correlation too between rates of college education and stable marriages, with the Bible Belt lagging a highly educated state like Massachusetts. But the irony still holds. Those parts of America that most fiercely uphold what they believe are traditional values are not those parts where traditional values are healthiest. Hypocrisy? Perhaps. A more insightful explanation is that these socially troubled communities cling onto absolutes in the abstract because they cannot live up to them in practice.

But doesn't being born again help bring down divorce rates? Jesus, after all, was mum on the subject of homosexuality, but was very clear about divorce, declaring it a sin unless adultery was involved. A recent study, however, found no measurable difference in divorce rates between those who are "born again" and those who are not. 29 percent of Baptists have been divorced, compared to 21 percent of Catholics. Moreover, a staggering 23 percent of married born-agains have been divorced twice or more. Teen births? Again, the contrast is striking. In a state like Texas, where the religious right is extremely strong and the rhetoric against teenage sex is gale-force strong, the teen births as a percentage of all births is 16.1 percent. In liberal, secular, gay-friendly Massachusetts, it's 7.4, almost half. Marriage itself is less popular in Texas than in Massachusetts. In Texas, the percent of people unmarried is 32.4 percent; in Massachusetts, it's 26.8 percent. So even with a higher marriage rate, Massachusetts manages a divorce rate almost half of its "conservative" rival.

Or take abortion. America is one of the few Western countries where the legality of abortion is still ferociously disputed. It's a country where the religious right is arguably the strongest single voting bloc, and in which abortion is a constant feature of cultural politics. Compare it to a country like Holland, perhaps the epitome of socially liberal, relativist liberalism. So which country has the highest rate of abortion? It's not even close. America has an abortion rate of 21 abortions per 1,000 women aged between 15 and 44. Holland has a rate of 6.8. Americans, in other words, have three times as many abortions as the Dutch. Remind me again: which country is the most socially conservative?

Even a cursory look at the leading members of the forces of social conservatism in America reveals the same pattern. The top conservative talk-radio host, Rush Limbaugh, has had three divorces and an addiction to pain-killers. The most popular conservative television personality, Bill O'Reilly, just settled a sex harassment suit that indicated a highly active adulterous sex life. Bill Bennett, the guru of the social right, was for many years a gambling addict. Karl Rove's chief outreach manager to conservative Catholics for the last four years, Deal Hudson, also turned out to be a man with a history of sexual harassment. Bob Barr, the conservative Georgian congressman who wrote the "Defense of Marriage Act," has had three wives so far. The states which register the highest ratings for the hot new television show, "Desperate Housewives," are all Bush-states.

The complicated truth is that America truly is a divided and conflicted country. But it's a grotesque exaggeration to say that the split is geographical, or correlated with blue and red states. Many of America's biggest "sinners" are those most intent on upholding virtue. In fact, it may be partly because they know sin so close-up that they want to prevent its occurrence among others. And some of those states which have the most liberal legal climate - the Northeast and parts of the upper MidWest - are also, in practice, among the most socially conservative. To ascribe all this to "hypocrisy" seems to me too crude an explanation. America is simply a far more complicated and diverse place than crude red and blue divisions can explain.

they are adding police and only in the big cities do they have paid firemen. The rest are volunteers.

I look at it this way: If a state can't stay in the black, then they have to cut spending some place that wouldn't jeopardize the safety of the citizens. Threats of cutting essential services like Barney Fife stated today are unjustified. Cut the non-essential services first.

Our governor talks about cutting back on services, laying off government workers, which I think is a good idea because government is too big anyway, but then he turns around and spends more money on non-essential items. Doesn't make sense.  

I assume you watched both conventions?????  I watched the Dems and now I'm watching the Pubs.  I am an INDEPENDENT.  I would support Obama were it not for my research of the church he has been associated with for 20 years.  This church, in my humble opinion, belongs to an extreme, radical, racist group.  We don't need that in the White House. With the exception of illegal immigration, he pretty much addressed all the things that I feel are important to the future of my children and grandchildren and were it not for his affiliation with his chosen church, I would probably vote for him.  .  At least he had the good sense to select a person as his running mate who actually might be "ready on day one" to lead this country.

Secondly, again in my humble opinion, McCain has a few screws loose rattling around upstairs.  He answers every question, even about how many houses he owns, with something like, "well, the longest time I spent anywhere was when I was a POW."  Other than that it has been all about bashing Obama and his not having "experience."  Then look what he did.  Picked a little-known female who has been abroad exactly once and tries to pass her off as "experienced." Truth:  She is a female and her state is the second largest producer of oil.  Bush governed the biggest oil producing state.  Enjoying those prices at the pumps?   To this point all the pub speakers have pushed McCain's war record.  What?????  Do we need more war?  I think a peacemaker would be better.

Now, before anyone pounces on me, I support NEITHER of these candidates and NEITHER will receive my vote.  Either way, the middle class Americans, to which I expect most MTs belong, lose. Our government will change when and if the majority of Americans quit using their heads as a hatrack for the Democrat and Republican parties, kick them out and bring back government "of the people, by the people and for the people."  Won't  happen this time but maybe next time won't be too late.

First of all, let me say I was undecided on this election until yesterday.  Obama's tax plan scares me to death.  I heard him on an interview yesterday, and he said that the top 5% of the country could *afford to help out those less fortunate to us*, meaning those that make above $200,000.  He also said that someone making under $45,000 would *probably* not have to pay income taxes, because all the tax revenue would be generated from the top 5% of the country, again, who could *afford* to help out his fellow man.

So, here's my question.  If I work my BUTT off making a great living for my family, who the heck is he to say I have to share it?  My husband and I put ourselves through school to get a good education for ourselves, searched for good jobs, worked more than one sometimes, and enjoy or standard of living, because we worked hard for it and EARNED it.  How dare he suggest that I have to share that with ANYONE, just because they dont' have as much.  We give to quite a few neighborhood organizations and national charities, we do not keep every penny for ourselves. 

If he does get elected and puts this new plan in place, why would people work hard to make a good living if quite a bit chunk of it is going to be taken away?  Why not just sit back, work as little as you want, stay under that $40,000 radar, not pay income taxes, and have the government give you some other *rich* guy's money because you don't have as much?

This really made my mind up for me.  It's time this county taught some personal responsibility and accountability, and I do not think he is the one for the job!

you will need to keep things like OBAMA and OSAMA straight.  The political system was based on the assumption that voters would know the difference between a tall black man running for president and a tall man in a sheet running for cover.  Study up.  Only a few more weeks . . . I'm betting you can do it.

If it doesn't apply to you, then nothing about your mortgage would change.  How is that unfair to you?  Would it be more fair to charge the taxpayers, including you, whether in you're arrears or not or owning a mortgage or not, the $700 billion dollars?

I don't get what about this is upsetting to you.  You already have a better rate and your credit must be great.  Any resolution to this problem should not result in someone making out better than before the problem started. 

I haven't been here for a while, and if this has already been posted below somewhere, I apologize for duplicating it.

The following link will take you to a site that will show you how much money Barack Obama will save you on taxes, compared to John McCain.  (Remember, McCain will be taxing your health insurance benefits for the first time in American history.)  Depending on your income, there is quite a difference between the two plans.

http://alchemytoday.com/obamataxcut/

McCain may be taxing us, but he is anti-abortion and anti-gay marriage

of sharing the wealth will put us in the GREAT DEPRESSION just like back when Hoover was in office, exept this time, it will be worse because many more people make more than 100,000 a year than they did years ago.  So basically it will be spreading the wellfare around.

Hate to break the news to you, but it looks as if there has been a welfare plan in place - its called "Corporate Welfare" and we are the ones who they rob; and every single Republican President from Reagan, Bush 1 and Bush 2 have robbed this country blind

Take all this money and instead of giving to big businesses and letting them do whatever with (because that worked so well with the bailout huh?) just pay off everybody's mortgage.  If my house was paid off, I would buy that 1K TV I want for my bedroom.  I'd buy new furniture for my living room because mine is 10+ years old.  I'd buy curtains and blinds for my windows.  I'd buy some nice rugs to put throughout my house.  I'd buy that Thomas Kincaid painting I've always wanted to hang on my wall.  I'd buy more fencing material to fence in more pasture for my horses.  I'd buy those 2 llamas I've been wanting.  My husband could buy another Harley like he has been wanting.  We would go out to eat more often.  These are just things that I would do if my hosue was paid off.  That is quite a bit of money back into the system but I can't do these things because I owe on my house.  Think about it. 

If you didn't have your mortage, what would you buy?

The Pickens Plan.

There are several pillars to the Pickens Plan:

• Create millions of new jobs by building out the capacity to generate up to 22 percent of our electricity from wind. And adding to that with additional solar capacity;
  
• Building a 21st century backbone electrical grid;
  
• Providing incentives for homeowners and the owners of commercial buildings to upgrade their insulation and other energy saving options; and
  
• Using America's natural gas to replace imported oil as a transportation fuel.

While dependence on foreign oil is a critical concern, it is not a problem that can be solved in isolation. We have to think about energy as a whole, and that begins by considering our energy alternatives and thinking about how we will fuel our world in the next 10 to 20 years and beyond.

New jobs from renewable energy and conservation.

Any discussion of alternatives should begin with the 2007 Department of Energy study showing that building out our wind capacity in the Great Plains - from northern Texas to the Canadian border - would produce 138,000 new jobs in the first year, and more than 3.4 million new jobs over a ten-year period, while also producing as much as 20 percent of our needed electricity.

Building out solar energy in the Southwest from western Texas to California would add to the boom of new jobs and provide more of our growing electrical needs - doing so through economically viable, clean, renewable sources.

To move that electricity from where it is being produced to where it is needed will require an upgrade to our national electric grid. A 21st century grid which will, as technology continues to develop, deliver power where it is needed, when it is needed, in the direction it is needed will be the modern equivalent of building the Interstate Highway System in the 1950's.

Beyond that, tremendous improvements in electricity use can be made by creating incentives for owners of homes and commercial buildings to retrofit their spaces with proper insulation. Studies show a significant upgrading of insulation would save the equivalent of one million barrels of oil per day in energy by cutting down on both air conditioning costs in warm weather and heating costs in winter.

A domestic fuel to free us from foreign oil.

The Honda Civic GX Natural Gas Vehicle is the cleanest internal-combustion vehicle in the world according to the EPA.

Conserving and harnessing renewable forms of electricity not only has incredible economic benefits, but is also a crucial piece of the oil dependence puzzle. We should continue to pursue the promise of electric or hydrogen powered vehicles, but America needs to address transportation fuel today. Fortunately, we are blessed with an abundance of clean, cheap, domestic natural gas.

Currently, domestic natural gas is primarily used to generate electricity. It has the advantage of being cheap and significantly cleaner than coal, but this is not the best use of our natural gas resources.

By generating electricity from wind and solar and conserving the electricity we have, we will be free to shift our use to natural gas to where it can lower our need for foreign oil - helping President Obama reach his goal of zero oil imports from the Middle East within ten years - by replacing diesel as the principal transportation fuel for heavy trucks and fleet vehicles.

Nearly 20% of every barrel of oil we import is used by 18-wheelers moving goods burning imported diesel. An over-the-road truck cannot be moved using current battery technology. Fleet vehicles like buses, taxis, express delivery trucks, and municipal and utility vehicles (any vehicle which returns to the "barn" each night where refueling is a simple matter) should be replaced by vehicles running on clean, cheap, domestic natural gas rather than imported gasoline or diesel fuel.

A plan that brings it all together.

Natural gas is not a permanent or complete solution to imported oil. It is a bridge fuel to slash our oil dependence while buying us time to develop new technologies that will ultimately replace fossil transportation fuels. Natural gas is the critical puzzle piece that will help us keep more of the $350 to $450 billion every year at home, where it can power our economy and pay for our investments in wind energy, a smart grid and energy efficiency.

It is this connection that makes The Pickens Plan not just a collection of good ideas, but a plan. By investing in renewable energy and conservation, we can create millions of new jobs. New alternative energies allow us to shift natural gas to transportation; securing our economy by reducing our dependence on foreign oil, and keeping more money at home to pay for the whole thing.