| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If you don't think the military is beneficial to the state as a guarantor of the freedoms you currently enjoy and a protection from the aggression of hostile powers, then I'm not sure this is a conversation we can have because we're going to disagree about fundamental assumptions.
In comparison with this, you're basically saying that all the nations who don't spend as much on their military don't enjoy the "freedoms" (whatever that means) and "protection from the aggression of hostile powers" (who are they again?) that the US does.
What foreign hostile power is on the verge of invading the US?Do you disagree that the vast amount of money spent on the US military could be spent more beneficially in helping and restoring the country internally?
I live in a country that doesn't spend a fraction of what the US does and I feel quite free. In fact, I'd say that I enjoy more "freedoms" than most people in the US do. I also am not fearful for being invaded by any foreign nation. And no, that's not because the US is "protecting us all."
|
]
And all of these people are just faking it?
What do we do with the "crazy" ones who actually can't work?
I never said some of it wasn't for a good reason or that it wasn't needed. It is needed for those who actually need it and are disabled. But some people do just mooch the system. I grew up in an area where some people in HS stated that all they wanted to do when they grew up was to draw a check. Some people will always abuse anything they are offered. I never said all of them do.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If you don't think the military is beneficial to the state as a guarantor of the freedoms you currently enjoy and a protection from the aggression of hostile powers, then I'm not sure this is a conversation we can have because we're going to disagree about fundamental assumptions.
Good thing I said the exact opposite.
Spending more than the 26 next countries on our military is absolutely diminishing returns, however. Furthermore, our military no longer functions merely to prevent foreign aggressors, but to ensure corporate interests globally.
It's a lot harder to qualify for SSI under physical disabilities because it requires objective measures from a doctor. Mentally qualifying is quite simple - you shop (free) doctors and tell them that you're bipolar/schizophrenic, or that your kids have ADHD. If it were hard, I would not run into this nearly as often as I do.
And I don't just deal with suspects - I deal with victims and witnesses as well. It is a widespread problem of abuse.
My objection is that there are people in need, and people who are just lazy. These programs throw money indiscriminately at people who are adept at gaming the system, while making it more difficult for those in genuine need.
|
|
"Crazy" checks? Seriously?
Let me see if I can put this mildly... F%*~ YOU!
How the f$%& dare you call people with mental illness for crazy people and deride the fact that they might be so debilitated by their illness that they can't hold down an ordinary job!
I apologzie if the statement offended you. I was using the terminology that was used before. Again I am not saying that most people have don't have a legitimate need for the benefits, just that some people abuse it.
As I said before I have had some experience with this and when a member of my extended family is drawing a check while also working under the table for more than I earn in a year it's a problem. Not everyone does it but enough do that it is a problem.
As a side note said family member did eventually get caught and was imprisoned for it.
I grew up in an area where some people in HS stated that all they wanted to do when they grew up was to draw a check.
That's called the American dream!
Dude that's what I want too, I just want to get there legitimately :)
It's a lot harder to qualify for SSI under physical disabilities because it requires objective measures from a doctor. Mentally qualifying is quite simple - you shop (free) doctors and tell them that you're bipolar/schizophrenic, or that your kids have ADHD. If it were hard, I would not run into this nearly as often as I do.
And I don't just deal with suspects - I deal with victims and witnesses as well. It is a widespread problem of abuse.
My objection is that there are people in need, and people who are just lazy. These programs throw money indiscriminately at people who are adept at gaming the system, while making it more difficult for those in genuine need.
Here's what I suggest you do. Go undercover and try to do exactly what you claim happened. Wear a wire, wear a hidden camera, document it thoroughly. Write an expose about it and bring it to peoples' attention.
Until then, why should anyone believe your anecdotes over anyone else's?
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 16, RPG Superstar 2013 Top 16
|
If you don't think the military is beneficial to the state as a guarantor of the freedoms you currently enjoy and a protection from the aggression of hostile powers, then I'm not sure this is a conversation we can have because we're going to disagree about fundamental assumptions.In comparison with this, you're basically saying that all the nations who don't spend as much on their military don't enjoy the "freedoms" (whatever that means) and "protection from the aggression of hostile powers" (who are they again?) that the US does.
What foreign hostile power is on the verge of invading the US?
Do you disagree that the vast amount of money spent on the US military could be spent more beneficially in helping and restoring the country internally?
I live in a country that doesn't spend a fraction of what the US does and I feel quite free. In fact, I'd say that I enjoy more "freedoms" than most people in the US do. I also am not fearful for being invaded by any foreign nation. And no, that's not because the US is "protecting us all."
I don't profess to know anything about Danish freedoms or the Danish military. My remarks concern freedoms of US citizens laid out in the Bill of Rights and the US military's role in ensuring those freedoms. My remarks have nothing to do with you, your country, or your military. At the very least stop putting words in my mouth about what I am or am not "basically saying." You don't know me at all.
If so many of you are seeing this here, there and all over, even within your own extended family, why aren't you reporting it? You seem to be very much up in arms about it, but apparently not enough to actively try and put an end to it.
If they're all psycho, knife-wielding lunatics - if that's your excuse for not reporting them - then maybe they're actually entitled to the help they get (because they can't work a proper job with that kind of mental instability)?
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
For whatever it's worth in the anecdote game, I had an internship in a federal court in law school and reviewed the rulings of administrative officials rejecting disability claims based on, for example, mental health/back pain claims. There are standards for who receives such benefits, and a process for reviewing and denying such benefits. Increasing the funding allocated to the administrative hearing process or judicial review process could reduce abuse to a far greater extent than imposing more draconian punishments.
I suspect the cost of administration/enforcement is greater than paying the additional benefits, particularly if the scope of claims challenged is expanded, but if we're interested in tilting at the idealistic windmill of identifying and weeding out all of the unworthy poor rather than trying to address the practical problems caused by poverty, that's not a relevant concern.
|
|
If so many of you are seeing this here, there and all over, even within your own extended family, why aren't you reporting it? You seem to be very much up in arms about it, but apparently not enough to actively try and put an end to it.
If they're all psycho, knife-wielding lunatics - if that's your excuse for not reporting them - then maybe they're actually entitled to the help they get (because they can't work a proper job with that kind of mental instability)?
I did. I would still do so if I knew it was happening.
|
|
For whatever it's worth in the anecdote game, I had an internship in a federal court in law school and reviewed the rulings of administrative officials rejecting disability claims based on, for example, mental health/back pain claims. There are standards for who receives such benefits, and a process for reviewing and denying such benefits. Increasing the funding allocated to the administrative hearing process or judicial review process could reduce abuse to a far greater extent than imposing more draconian punishments.
I suspect the cost of administration/enforcement is greater than paying the additional benefits, particularly if the scope of claims challenged is expanded, but if we're interested in tilting at the idealistic windmill of identifying and weeding out all of the unworthy poor rather than trying to address the practical problems caused by poverty, that's not a relevant concern.
This is true as well. I had read an articule at one point about a lawgiver and an attorney having a deal to split proceeds from approved decisions. Abuse is all over.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't profess to know anything about Danish freedoms or the Danish military. My remarks concern freedoms of US citizens laid out in the Bill of Rights and the US military's role in ensuring those freedoms. My remarks have nothing to do with you, your country, or your military. At the very least stop putting words in my mouth about what I am or am not "basically saying." You don't know me at all.
You said that the military is a guarantor of the freedoms US citizens currently enjoy... is it really a long shot to extrapolate that this should then also be the same for every other country?
What makes the US so special that it has more "freedoms" to protect with their military than any other nation?And you fall into the typical groove of many people and just keep on about these ephemeral "freedoms" without defining them. It's typical patriotic propaganda and doesn't really mean anything.
"But they'll take away our FREEDOMS!"
What freedoms and who are they? (note, I'm not claiming you've said that, but it's just an example of the typical rhetoric).
So, again, please define these freedoms which are special to the US and how the enormous amount of money spent on the military protects these freedoms is better than providing (or at least not making things worse) for the ordinary US citizen who might need a helping hand.
Otherwise it's just empty rhetoric and we can dismiss it with the same ease you proclaim it.
If people get disability because of mental illness, based on notes from their regular doctors (or any free clinic they attend) then I will give that there's a problem with the system. Those kind of diagnoses shouldn't be given by anyone but professional psychiatrists, who are trained to diagnose them. It also shouldn't be as simple as just visiting one for a session or two. Diagnosing mental illness takes much longer time and should be done under proper circumstances.
|
|
If people get disability because of mental illness, based on notes from their regular doctors (or any free clinic they attend) then I will give that there's a problem with the system. Those kind of diagnoses shouldn't be given by anyone but professional psychiatrists, who are trained to diagnose them. It also shouldn't be as simple as just visiting one for a session or two. Diagnosing mental illness takes much longer time and should be done under proper circumstances.
Agreed. But as you stated multiple visits should be required. Here if someone applies and has no medical records available they get sent to a doctor for an evaluation of the condition. Just one if it is just a mental allegation or more if it is also physical.
I really wish our health care system was different but that is just the way it is.
In addition military spending could certainly be honed down a bit. As was stated above at one point $500.00 toilet seats. I remember ordering a single screw to fix gear while I was in the military. Cost $86.00 the unit didn't have the funds to spare for that piece of gear so we went to Lowes and spent 0.22.
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
I would note that I'm pretty sure Charlie Bell is a veteran or active service military person, and it's not entirely surprising that he would have such a strong reaction against a claim (however unintended) that his service and sacrifice are a waste. I would also submit that the U.S. military does a lot of good in the world, including humanitarian missions and the occasional dictatorship toppling, and that broad generalizations painting the military as The Evil are as inaccurate as broad generalizations painting all welfare recipients as bums.
Plus, this military stuff really has jack s*#+ to do with the topic at hand.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I suspect the cost of administration/enforcement is greater than paying the additional benefits, particularly if the scope of claims challenged is expanded, but if we're interested in tilting at the idealistic windmill of identifying and weeding out all of the unworthy poor rather than trying to address the practical problems caused by poverty, that's not a relevant concern.
Damn, you're sexy when you talk like a lawyer! I bet the chicks dig it.
|
|
No, I was responding to "bloated, corrupt military-industrial complex."
To be fair, I don't think that anyone meant to imply that those serving are the ones benefitting from spending on the 'military-industrial complex'.
Having known some of them, I can assure you all that enlisted folks are NOT getting rich from our wars. :)
Doctor shopping could be easier to catch under a single payer healthcare system but I don't see that happening any time soon. I also think doctor shopping is wrong because it is just trying to game the system.
|
|
I suspect the cost of administration/enforcement is greater than paying the additional benefits...
I can (anecdotally) confirm this. It is a common situation in benefits of this type- the administrator may suspect that someone is exaggerating their illness in order to qualify, but there is a pretty strict limit on the number of private investigators that can be paid for- or even the number of claims that can be sent for medical review.
On the other end, many of the people who have the most problems with providing documentation and navigating the system are the ones who have the worst problems.
The system really isn't as easy to fix as it may seem from the outside.
<ninja'd by thejeff>
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If people get disability because of mental illness, based on notes from their regular doctors (or any free clinic they attend) then I will give that there's a problem with the system. Those kind of diagnoses shouldn't be given by anyone but professional psychiatrists, who are trained to diagnose them. It also shouldn't be as simple as just visiting one for a session or two. Diagnosing mental illness takes much longer time and should be done under proper circumstances.
I do not disagree with you, but remember most of us are talking about the US, the people in question are probably lucky to have a primary care doctor or someone they see at a free clinic
<ninja'd by damnitall- cut that out!>
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Plus, this military stuff really has jack s+@& to do with the topic at hand.
I actually think it's somewhat topical.
I mean at the heart of the problem is a disagreement about where resources should be allocated by our society. I think it's obvious that belts can be tightened all around, but I find it peculiar that military spending is such a sacred cow.I'd actually like to see some econometric study of how much social good is bought by a welfare dollar vs. a military dollar.
Doctor shopping could be easier to catch under a single payer healthcare system but I don't see that happening any time soon. I also think doctor shopping is wrong because it is just trying to game the system.
I have ONE primary doctor/consultation, whom I see when I need medical advice. I think that's the standard for most single payer/universal health care programs (anyone living in other countries can chime in on this if I'm wrong). Now, it might be a small clinic with a couple of doctors, but, at least over here, you can't just go to any doctor you like (if your primary doctor is on vacation, then all patients are referred to another doctor/clinic). Sure, you can change doctor/practice, and some do if they don't feel like they are getting the care they need, but it's a bit of a hassle since you have to get a new social security card each time (and pay for it if it's not because of you moving to another address).
If people get disability because of mental illness, based on notes from their regular doctors (or any free clinic they attend) then I will give that there's a problem with the system. Those kind of diagnoses shouldn't be given by anyone but professional psychiatrists, who are trained to diagnose them. It also shouldn't be as simple as just visiting one for a session or two. Diagnosing mental illness takes much longer time and should be done under proper circumstances.I do not disagree with you, but remember most of us are talking about the US, the people in question are probably lucky to have a primary care doctor or someone they see at a free clinic
As I also commented on in my first post, something I'm definitely not envious of. I seriously have a hard time grasping how anyone can see this as a great or beneficial system (unless you're making money off of it).
|
|
I have ONE primary doctor/consultation, whom I see when I need medical advice. I think that's the standard for most single payer/universal health care programs (anyone living in other countries can chime in on this if I'm wrong). Now, it might be a small clinic with a couple of doctors, but, at least over here, you can't just go to any doctor you like (if your primary doctor is on vacation, then all patients are referred to another doctor/clinic). Sure, you can change doctor/practice, and some do if they don't feel like they are getting the care they need, but it's a bit of a hassle since you have to get a new social security card each time (and pay for it if it's not because of you moving to another address).
You have to get a new government ID and pay for it yourself in order to switch doctors!?
Wow. I think we can safely say that your experience of healthcare access has been very different than for us USians.
It may be (probably is) harder for us to pay for a visit, but there is no mechanism to stop someone from seeing a different doctor.
|
|
As I also commented on in my first post, something I'm definitely not envious of. I seriously have a hard time grasping how anyone can see this as a great or beneficial system (unless you're making money off of it)....Diagnosing mental illness takes much longer time and should be done under proper circumstances.I do not disagree with you, but remember most of us are talking about the US, the people in question are probably lucky to have a primary care doctor or someone they see at a free clinic
I'm not making any money off of it. :(
As an aside, regarding your post above on... courteous use of language to refer to those receiving benefits. I would not use the phrase to refer to you (or most people) but I have had friends who I believe were legitimately receiving benefits for mental/nervous conditions who referred to their benefits as "crazy pay". I think that phrase is not unknown over here and is not (necessarily) meant to be insulting. YMMV
You have to get a new government ID and pay for it yourself in order to switch doctors!?
Wow. I think we can safely say that your experience of healthcare access has been very different than for us USians.
It may be (probably is) harder for us to pay for a visit, but there is no mechanism to stop someone from seeing a different doctor.
To switch doctors, yes, because we have a social security card where our information (including address) is printed on and also our primary doctor's name and address (since he or she has my medical record). So a new card has to be issued if you want to change doctor (a new one has to be printed with the updated info). This card is similar to a credit card (here's a picture of a sample card - and a real one).
Now, of course, you CAN see another doctor, e.g. if you're visiting someone else in another part of the country and get sick, but when at home you have one primary doctor whom you see if in need of medical advice or attention (unless it's an emergency or other such circumstances where you need to go to the hospital).And, of course, we don't pay for seeing our doctors (through taxes, yes, but not cash in any way).
|
|
So, again, please define these freedoms which are special to the US and how the enormous amount of money spent on the military protects these freedoms is better than providing (or at least not making things worse) for the ordinary US citizen who might need a helping hand.
Otherwise it's just empty rhetoric and we can dismiss it with the same ease you proclaim it.
I can't respond to the question on freedoms and I don't think this is the right thread to talk about how much the US or the EU *should* be spending, but I believe it is worth noting that during the conflict in Libya it was widely claimed that our European allies were running out of supplies and were being supported by the US. The reports claimed that a lot of communications, recon, and command&control were provided by the US because we had the infrastructure and nobody else did.
As an aside, regarding your post above on... courteous use of language to refer to those receiving benefits. I would not use the phrase to refer to you (or most people) but I have had friends who I believe were legitimately receiving benefits for mental/nervous conditions who referred to their benefits as "crazy pay". I think that phrase is not unknown over here and is not (necessarily) meant to be insulting. YMMV
I can joke around about my own mental health too, but then it's on my own behalf, not on others who might be in a similar situation. I guess it's the same you see in other circumstances, where it's seen as OK for those who belong to the "group" to use words that might seem derogatory about themselves, but it's not okay for "others" to do the same. A double standard? Perhaps, but I think it's a question of it not always being used in a non-insulting way by others.
You're right Usagi, this isn't the place for it, but confusing military capability with freedom am thoughtcrime, you dig?
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
If you don't think the military is beneficial to the state as a guarantor of the freedoms you currently enjoy and a protection from the aggression of hostile powers, then I'm not sure this is a conversation we can have because we're going to disagree about fundamental assumptions.
There is a large difference between "a military" and "The level of military we currently have"
Our military appears to be far, FAR too large for simple defense. It exists largely for ensuring the interests of large corporations overseas. Its far more than we need to deter aggression from a hostile force.
|
|
Now, of course, you CAN see another doctor, e.g. if you're visiting someone else in another part of the country and get sick, but when at home you have one primary doctor whom you see if in need of medical advice or attention (unless it's an emergency or other such circumstances where you need to go to the hospital).
And, of course, we don't pay for seeing our doctors (through taxes, yes, but not cash in any way).
Interesting, that looks more like what we would call a health insurance card than a Social Security card.
Weird, I just noticed that I automatically capitalized that and you did not.
We normally only ever have the original SS card, but will have many different health insurance cards throughout our lives ( note that we don't capitalize the health insurance ones)
Now, of course, you CAN see another doctor, e.g. if you're visiting someone else in another part of the country and get sick, but when at home you have one primary doctor whom you see if in need of medical advice or attention (unless it's an emergency or other such circumstances where you need to go to the hospital).
And, of course, we don't pay for seeing our doctors (through taxes, yes, but not cash in any way).Interesting, that looks more like what we would call a health insurance card than a Social Security card.
Weird, I just noticed that I automatically capitalized that and you did not.
We normally only ever have the original SS card, but will have many different health insurance cards throughout our lives ( note that we don't capitalize the health insurance ones)
Actually, if you translate the Danish word for it, then it also becomes a health insurance card (well, proof or document is the more direct translation instead of card). But we're "insured" by the state I guess you could say.
It has also recently been changed to a health card (a name change only). There's also a blue one that's used in the EU, e.g. if you're on vacation in another country within the EU.| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What foreign hostile power is on the verge of invading the US?
All of them...duh.
At the very least stop putting words in my mouth about what I am or am not "basically saying." You don't know me at all.
He doesn't have to "know you" to hold you responsible for the corollaries of your statements.
I hate it cause it won't let me sit around doing bong hits on the couch, or even provide free medical care, but I guess that question was for GG, huh?
Edit: But seriously, when did we start talking about American Freedoms in favor of Rights? I blame Norman Rockwell, and i'm only half joking.
What foreign hostile power is on the verge of invading the US?All of them...duh.That's right! Because they hate our freedom!
Gentle Giant, *why* do you hate our freedom so?
Because they prohibit my dream of maybe relocating to the US! Oh wait, that's not really your freedoms, rather your restrictions. Heck, if I wanted to I could go get married to another guy tomorrow (if I happened to be gay... well, technically I guess I don't need to be to get married to another guy), see my doctor for free, have her ask me about the surgery I got two years ago, at a private hospital, yet still didn't pay for or start studying while getting paid to do so (okay, can't do the last part, but that's because of the SSI situation and my illness, not because it's not possible here).
No, the only freedoms I hate you guys have, which I don't, is being able to buy cheap egg whites in big cartons, buy pink or blue extruded foam easily and Paizo Con. Oh, Krispy Kreme doughnuts too!| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It may be (probably is) harder for us to pay for a visit, but there is no mechanism to stop someone from seeing a different doctor.
Depends on your employer (since no one here except millionaires can afford health insurance independently). Many of them offer an HMO, in which you're not fully covered if you go to someone other than your "Primary Care Provider," and aren't covered at all if you go out of network.
|
|
No, the only freedoms I hate you guys have, which I don't, is being able to buy cheap egg whites in big cartons, buy pink or blue extruded foam easily and Paizo Con. Oh, Krispy Kreme doughnuts too!
Gentle Giant, *why* do you hate our freedom so?
Not sure about the foam, but you aren't really missing much on the KK doughnuts. Too much sugar and too much grease.
|
|
It may be (probably is) harder for us to pay for a visit, but there is no mechanism to stop someone from seeing a different doctor.Depends on your employer (since no one here except millionaires can afford health insurance independently). Many of them offer an HMO, in which you're not fully covered if you go to someone other than your "Primary Care Provider," and aren't covered at all if you go out of network.
Sir, I demand that you take your "fact-based" arguments away from my Internets!
But otherwise, okay, yes, that's true. But if your health insurance will let you, or if you are rich, it's easy to switch doctors.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Not sure about the foam, but you aren't really missing much on the KK doughnuts. Too much sugar and too much grease.
Where have you been eating them?
I don't think I've ever gotten grease on a doughnut of any kind..Krispy Kremes are the freaking best.
It may be (probably is) harder for us to pay for a visit, but there is no mechanism to stop someone from seeing a different doctor.Depends on your employer (since no one here except millionaires can afford health insurance independently). Many of them offer an HMO, in which you're not fully covered if you go to someone other than your "Primary Care Provider," and aren't covered at all if you go out of network.Sir, I demand that you take your "fact-based" arguments away from my Internets!
But otherwise, okay, yes, that's true. But if your health insurance will let you, or if you are rich, it's easy to switch doctors.
So, in reality that amounts to... less than maybe 5% of the US population (I readily admit that I don't know how many HMOs will allow you to do that)?
Not really a representative part of the population I'd guess then. ;-)Many (most) of the people on welfare would be uncovered, thus they have no such restrictions, but can most likely also only use free clinics.
Not sure about the foam, but you aren't really missing much on the KK doughnuts. Too much sugar and too much grease.Where have you been eating them?
I don't think I've ever gotten grease on a doughnut of any kind..Krispy Kremes are the freaking best.
I've been to the US twice, so I have indeed tasted the food-like crack which is Krispy Kreme doughnuts. Those things are downright addictive (although I might not be able to enjoy them as much after my gastric bypass operation - now they might indeed be too sugary).
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
As much as I abhor unjust violence, I believe the military is necessary to keep a country safe, just as the police is. However, as BigNorseWorlf mentions, there is a point where it is no longer about having enough military to keep a country safe, but about having a bigger stick.
The use of force must always be seen as an evil; sometimes it can be a necessary evil and fall on the better side of the Double Effect Test (where you check for both the intention and alternative of an action), but an evil nonetheless. Having to shoot someone should never be seen as a good thing, and thus anything that has as a goal the shooting of people must be treated as an unwanted element. But since we live in a world where sometimes said use of violence can be the only way to stop greater harm from happening, we can accept the existence of coercitive measures. However, said measures can only be accepted in a manner of strict necessity, and nothing more: We need enough military force so as to serve as a mean of safety, but not enough that we have spare tanks and carriers should we want to invade someone.
The use of force must always work on a "minimal amount for effectiveness" principle; if you need to shoot a terrorist in the leg to stop a murder, you shoot him in the leg, not in the head.
By that principle (and please note this is all personal opinion that you may very well disagree with), spending more resources on coercitive measures than what is strictly necessary is wasteful, and doing so at the expense of things like welfare is paramount to criminal negligence. Now, I don't think people in the armies of the world decide to shoot a rocket and give the finger to the homeless in the process; I know my fair share of military men and women and they are all exemplars of justice and I owe them all my respect. The problem usually is one of priorities at an executive and legislative level, where the need for military spending is often over-evaluated and, since the subject is not directly presented, resources that could be spent in helping those in need are used in grossly innefficient manners.
When money that could have saved a sick person's life is spent on a gun that ends up killing yet another person, I believe it is time to better evaluate priorities.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I've been to the US twice, so I have indeed tasted the food-like crack which is Krispy Kreme doughnuts. Those things are downright addictive (although I might not be able to enjoy them as much after my gastric bypass operation - now they might indeed be too sugary).
I personally think they're overrated, but to address your concern, the issue regarding dumping syndrome as well as feeling slightly nauseous due to the sugar overload in a short period of time is likely. This is from field experience, of course. =)
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 16, RPG Superstar 2013 Top 16
|
I don't profess to know anything about Danish freedoms or the Danish military. My remarks concern freedoms of US citizens laid out in the Bill of Rights and the US military's role in ensuring those freedoms. My remarks have nothing to do with you, your country, or your military. At the very least stop putting words in my mouth about what I am or am not "basically saying." You don't know me at all.You said that the military is a guarantor of the freedoms US citizens currently enjoy... is it really a long shot to extrapolate that this should then also be the same for every other country?
What makes the US so special that it has more "freedoms" to protect with their military than any other nation?
And you fall into the typical groove of many people and just keep on about these ephemeral "freedoms" without defining them. It's typical patriotic propaganda and doesn't really mean anything.
"But they'll take away our FREEDOMS!"
What freedoms and who are they? (note, I'm not claiming you've said that, but it's just an example of the typical rhetoric).
So, again, please define these freedoms which are special to the US and how the enormous amount of money spent on the military protects these freedoms is better than providing (or at least not making things worse) for the ordinary US citizen who might need a helping hand.
Otherwise it's just empty rhetoric and we can dismiss it with the same ease you proclaim it.
You can feel free to dismiss anything I say whenever you like. You continue to misrepresent what I have written in this thread. I think I'm done here.
|
I know a lady who has 9 kids and all the kids and her get the "crazy" check. At current rates that means $6980.00 dollars per month."Crazy" checks? Seriously?
Let me see if I can put this mildly... F!@# YOU!
How the f#~% dare you call people with mental illness for crazy people and deride the fact that they might be so debilitated by their illness that they can't hold down an ordinary job!
It is it not an exageration. Last time I lived in public housing nearly half the other families were doing exactly this. Their primary impediments to employment? (Besides a lack of education and criminal records.) A minimum wage job would have drastically reduced their standard of living.
While there are people with genuine mental issues, they are far from the majority. In low income areas being declared mentally disabled is a literal rubber stamp. Health clinics don't have the funding or the time for a true evaluation.