I can here some are not able to agree with the Jim even though Jim has given some good point in this post..He did much other than launch a sad personal attack on Limbaugh and i can feel it..
little league free hotel stay

"See above and as you seem to feel that you can make accusations when someone else makes a statement that contradicts your beliefs."

I made absolutely no accusations; I asked for the source of your information - I don't think that's unreasonable or a reason for you to get offended. You may contradict me to your heart's content, just be prepared to defend your statements.

I don't extend the benefit of the doubt because people, including you, make untrue statements and try to pass them off as truth.

Nevertheless, your statement that “all Hospitals must treat anyone that walks though the door with or without insurance” is incorrect, and your response to my post does not contradict my objection to that statement.



I did not say that I was contradicting to your statement, in your corner of “post-Katrina” it does appear to be different, so I was a little too broad, however I would put money that it’s the majority of larger hospitals. I would not say that I have been to all of them, only that it is what they have been saying. This as well was also “post-Katrina and pre-Government caused economic crash”, so it might slightly different with all of the tightening going on.


EMTLA does not apply to all hospitals, only those that receive federal reimbursement (in post-Katrina New Orleans, where LSU has kept Charity closed since the storm, the only hospital that receives federal reimbursement is – take a guess: LSU)

Ok, we get the “post-Katrina” stuff… see above



EMTLA does not require that all patients receive care, only those with emergent medical conditions.

Requires and is acting out of fear are different frames of action.



“…it won’t change the fact that it is causing most hospitals from acting in that manor”

What evidence do you have to support your claim that most hospitals are providing care without reimbursement?


It’s called Healthcare Data Analytics and Predictive Modeling related to what is and has been reported by a large number of hospitals. The data might even be online, if you know where to look.

“It’s the issue that I hear most from all of the area hospitals is that they must treat everyone...”


Hearsay is not evidence. How did you collect and analyze your data to enable you to state that as a fact?


See above and as you seem to feel that you can make accusations when someone else makes a statement that contradicts your beliefs. Maybe you should read the rules as well and remember that it’s not always about being right, but it should always be about the truth. You’re not exactly extending the benefit of doubt when you call my statements as Hearsay before knowing my source.


Before it gets to a point of having to email credentials or actual reports, I will leave this site and your non-extending benefit of doubt… “Why do you not practice what you preach?” –Saint Jerome

Nevertheless, your statement that “all Hospitals must treat anyone that walks though the door with or without insurance” is incorrect, and your response to my post does not contradict my objection to that statement.

EMTLA does not apply to all hospitals, only those that receive federal reimbursement (in post-Katrina New Orleans, where LSU has kept Charity closed since the storm, the only hospital that receives federal reimbursement is – take a guess: LSU)

EMTLA does not require that all patients receive care, only those with emergent medical conditions.

“…it won’t change the fact that it is causing most hospitals from acting in that manor”

What evidence do you have to support your claim that most hospitals are providing care without reimbursement?

“It’s the issue that I hear most from all of the area hospitals is that they must treat everyone...”

Hearsay is not evidence. How did you collect and analyze your data to enable you to state that as a fact?

Not true….

…..In post-Katrina New Orleans, where I live and work as a nurse, if a person does not have an emergent medical condition and does not have insurance or a means to pay for medical care, that person does not receive medical care unless s/he can find a charitable organization (in general, for-profit hospitals are not charitable) to provide care.


Actually, it is true, and while I respect the work you are doing (especially in the area you are in) I would have to disagree with your disagreement of my statement. While we could argue against the definition of “treatment”, frankly I would say that being triaged counts as care; couple that with not being able to deny care if the situation is life threatening and you can’t fine many hospitals that won’t treat everyone that walks though the door. It’s the issue that I hear most from all of the area hospitals is that they must treat everyone, maybe the act does allow for other interpretation, however with the risk of being sued over not treating; 100% of area hospitals in my area treat 100% of those that walk in. And from personal experience, I have witnessed a friend who was admitted for treatment after a car accident and was not even asked about insurance until the following day when rounds began.


Even the act states “Examination and treatment cannot be delayed to inquire about methods of payment or insurance coverage, or a patient's citizenship or legal status.” I have seen the reports being presented to hospital board members on how many non-legal patients had received care over the past quarter and you would be amazed…


So while the Act might not “require” treatment of the common cold, hospitals and their insurance carriers in many areas are not worth denying care to someone based on coverage… You can say that the Act does not require it and we could respectfully debate that point, however it won’t change the fact that it is causing most hospitals from acting in that manor…

We didn't kill hundreds of thousands of people.
You are in denial. This is documented by acceptable scientific process by teams supervised by a US university, with results published in the Lancet.

The Constitution makes no reference to the Geneva accords, and we did not violate them when invading Iraq.
The constitution says we are bound by law to honor the treaties we sign. "...all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution [of any State] or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

There have been many articles about instances of the US Breaking the Geneva Conventions in Iraq. I think it was Addison who wrote and Gonzales who approved a statement that the Geneva rules were rendered quaint. I didn't know quaint was a legal status, but hey these were hacks. All anyone has to do is read the Geneva conventions to see that we violated them on a regular basis, I am not interestedin trying to convince Kevin, but just go read them. They are on line; they are in simple language.

Several Iraqis and Afghans were killed under US torture.No one knows how many because the extraordinary rendition part of this policy remains a secret program, much to the shame of the US and Obama. The pictures of Abu Graibh showed corpses.

Again you continue in denial.

The remark about the entire race was not an argument but a correction of fact.

Sorry, that came out harsh. I don't like Emanuel. A few papers put out articles about Rahm about his crass use of language before he was selected by Obama. That was all. Both Rush and Emanuel are ungracious in their speech. Forgive my lack of a gentle response. I still believe we all need to read more so we can be more informed and have direct sources instead of relying on he said she said (including what is written in the opinion articles here). Cheers.

I’ve provided some pretty concrete examples of the strains of fascism that run through the American left and Democrats. And you don’t have to work to convince me that similar strains can be found running through aspects of the American right and Republicans. I said as much to xfree. But your examples are pretty weak. Limbaugh isn’t a fascist simply because he shouts and acts angry. As I said, fascism isn’t a demeanor; it’s an ideology. Could you elaborate on which “neocon ideas” you’re talking about? The example of Gen Butler is extremely weak. I didn’t even know who Butler was so I looked him up online. According to Wikipedia (not necessarily an authoritative source, but it will have to do for now), after Butler testified to Congress about the Liberty League’s supposed plot to overthrow the government, “No prosecutions or further investigations followed, and historians and contemporary journalists largely rejected the idea that any such plan was near execution, with the New York Times characterizing it as a ‘gigantic hoax.’”

“The League labeled Roosevelt's Agricultural Adjustment Administration ‘a trend toward Fascist control of agriculture.’ Social Security was said to ‘mark the end of democracy.’ Lawyers for the American Liberty League challenged the validity of the Wagner Act (National Labor Relations Act), but in 1937, the United States Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the statute. The League faded away and disbanded in 1940.”

If the League was a fascist plot, why would it accuse its opponents of being fascists? Anyway, there doesn’t appear to be much evidence that this plot actually existed. Again, your examples are pretty weak.

I don’t want to turn this into an essay, but hopefully this isn’t too long. Reading back over it, it’s pretty disjointed, but there’s a lot of information.

As I said, if you look at fascism and its founders in the first half of the 1900s not as caricatures but as an ideology, you could distill it down to Mussolini’s slogan of “Everything in the State, nothing outside the State.” As one commentator put it, Mussolini “coined the word ‘totalitarian’ to describe not a tyrannical society but a humane one in which everyone is taken care of and contributes equally. It was an organic concept where every class, every individual, was part of the larger whole.” Think of Mussolini’s bundle of sticks. Essentially, fascists believed that the central government should organize society around a common goal or objective, that there was such a thing as a model citizen and that the state should try to construct it – there was no role of individualistic behavior (a constant criticism made of the American right) in this model. This is the essence of fascism.

As for individual actors, Teddy Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson are great examples of progressives who exhibited strains of fascism. Both men were imperialist and believed in the subjugation of other “lesser” cultures and people. It is well documented that Wilson was a racist. They both loved the idea that drafting young men for war would mold them into model citizens. Wilson in particular, saw the urgency of a war as a great way to recreate a country to his liking.

Wilson wrote that “government...does now whatever experience permits or the times demand” and that “I cannot imagine power as a thing negative and not positive.” He thoughts that Constitutional checks and balances as antiquated and artificial. Read “Leaders of Men” by Wilson. It’s all about how a strong leader can get masses of people to do his will. He has no time for deliberation or concessions. Action is what is needed; strong leaders who can ignite mass movements of people to do what he sees as the common good. He believed that the “individual should marry his interests to the state.”

Roosevelt and Wilson believed in controlling business and putting it to use for the public welfare. These strains are echoed today when people talk about businesses being good corporate citizens or blame them for being unpatriotic for “shipping jobs overseas” in efforts to force businesses to do what is best for the country, not their shareholders or bottom lines. It’s one thing to regulate businesses for worker and consumer safety, it’s quite another to tell business owners what types of products they should sell and for what price (think urging American car companies to build certain cars). In a joint session of Congress, Wilson said he wanted no “antagonism between business and government.” Talk about corporatism. I’d rather have big business and big government at each other’s throats, one a check and balance on the other.

Also, read up on Herbert Croly, one of the preeminent progressives of the era. He believed war was useful because it focused the country’s action and attention and could be used to drastically change society because people were united in a supposedly glorious and nationalistic cause. Wilson created a “Committee on Public Information” headed by a guy who believed that fear was “an important element to be bred into the civilian population.” Read up on what Wilson did to get the country to mobilize for war and his “Four Minute Men”. It’s the stuff of fiction, but it actually happened. Clarence Darrow, another man of the left, said that anyone who doesn’t back Wilson in the war is a traitor. Does this sound familiar? Wilson’s Sedition Act resulted in 75 publications being shut down. Hundreds of others were temporarily suspended by the Wilson Administration. Stifling of dissent? Imagine if Bush tried to do that today. The Espionage and Sedition Acts made any criticism of the government illegal. Also, read about Wilson’s American Protective League and the Palmer Raids.

The Progressives and Social Gospel movement of the late 1800s and early 1900s believed that freedom was too unorganized and unjust a principle. People who didn’t have means could get left behind and not cared for. They wanted to get rid of the disorganized competitive life of the time and created a more cooperative life using government as the organizer. You can see these strains in Christian Progressives of today.

So I’ll stop with Wilson and Teddy for now. I think you get the idea.

On to FDR…how about repealing habeas corpus rights or the interment of the Japanese or power grabs like court packing? Even before World War II, the Nazi Party’s official paper looked at the New Deal and adored the “National Socialist strains of thought in [FDR’s] economic and social policies.” Mussolini also admired the way the New Deal changed American society. He was fascinated by the way Roosevelt was able to take a crisis and use it and the fear the American people had to change society to fit his mold. Again, if you have the time or interest, go back and read what the fascists of Europe thought of FDR before the war. They looked to him and his methods and policies.

FDR’s CCC members wore WWI uniforms, met at army recruiting stations, were moved around the country in troops trains, marched in formation and received military training. Again, imagine if Bush had organized some domestic force that acted like this. Does it remind you of anything? Also, go and read about Hugh Johnson who headed the Nat. Recovery Administration and his Blue Eagle.

The guiding ideology behind all of this was the central government should organize virtually all of society- we’re not individuals who happen to live in the same country – we’re actually all a cooperative whole whose mission should be organized by the central government.

Also, there’s the whole issue of eugenics that progressives of that era were enamored with.

The policies of Wilson and FDR set the stage for the left that was to follow. These strains continue today, although they’re obviously less severe. The central government is seen as the entity to provide the solutions and answers. Progressive leaders from Kennedy to Obama have called for unity of the people. Service to your country is seen as the highest good, of course, with the central government directing that service. It’s not good enough to encourage people to serve their neighbor; the government must direct that “service” and reward you for it with payment. Calls for mandatory national service, military or social, are issued today. The cult of personality is alive and well (see Kennedy, Obama, and you can see it on the right with Reagan). Corporatism is a feature of both political parties today.

Also, if militarism if a feature of fascism, then if you look through American history, it’s not just those on the right who’ve advocated for aggressive U.S. military action abroad. Only someone who is blind to history would argue otherwise.

Individualism and competition are frowned upon by today’s Progressives just as they were by Progressives of old. If you’re going to have a cooperative society organized by the state you can’t have individualism, which is why there’s such a drive to get kids out of homes and into school at an earlier and earlier age. Elementary school isn’t early enough so kindergarten was created and now there’s a drive for universal day care, um, I mean, pre-school.

As xfree noted, look at the actual public policy programs advocated by the fascists of Europe in the 20s and 30s. They’re pretty similar to what the American left advocates today.

“I did not know this was enemy territory......”

I didn’t say this was enemy territory for you.

“what disdain my fellow brothers and sisters in Christ have for Conservatives”

I have absolutely no disdain for conservatives – I’m married to one, and while I have a number of disagreements with my wife and my inlaws, I love them and am loved by them. I have respectful dialog with most of the conservative participants on this blog. I believe that just as a bird needs a left wing and a right wing to fly, so our country needs a balance between conservatism and liberalism.

You know little, if anything about me beyond the label 'liberal,' are making unjustified assumptions about me.

“Does it even enter your mind that you could possibly be wrong on your views?”

Every day – and you?

“This division is what the devil desires among us.”

Again, disagreement is not tantamount to division.

“And to be honest Mr. Wallis is a pawn.”

No one has ever heard me defend Jim Wallis.

Rush Limbaugh speaks incredibly harshly about liberals. I’m sure it comes as no surprise to him that others – including some conservatives - speak harshly of him. He has voluntarily placed himself in a position in which he will draw criticism – again, criticism is not tantamount to a personal attack.

The general tone of this conversation, while critical of Limbaugh, has not been hateful or necessarily un-Christian. Most of the participants on this thread have expressed serious concern about the character of Limbaugh’s comments. That is not only our right, but it is also our responsibility to correct any misinformation his listeners may have received from Limbaugh or other sources, e.g., "all Hospitals must treat anyone that walks though the door with or without insurance."

Limbaugh's free speech was not under attack.

neuro_nurse- I did not know this was enemy territory......
what disdain my fellow brothers and sisters in Christ
have for Conservatives. Does it even enter your mind
that you could possibly be wrong on your views? I am
not talking about Rush either...I pray the scales would
be removed and we all come back to the table
remembering the reason why we are Christians. Because
we all are sinners, notice I said we not you. We all are in
need of a savior. We all need to repent of our sins and
ask God to forgive us and invite Jesus into our heart as
Lord and Savior. May our lives reflect that change. Stopping
the willful sin, sin anything that goes against Gods word and
disobedience. May we all stop fighting about what a man
said and look outside ourself to do what we are called to
do...that is to love. Love our enemy...Romans 12:8 LOVE
MUST BE SINCERE! This division is what the devil desires
among us. And to be honest Mr. Wallis is a pawn. Allowing
himself to be used to further cause division, in which
I am guilty also. May we all just step back. Take a deep
breath. And ask God for wisdom on why we are so
deeply divided and angry.
I pray you all have a blessed day. And a safe weekend.
Don't forget to pray for our troops in Afghanistan and Iraq.
Hug your family, praise God when your feet hit the floor!

Well, a couple of my college friends thought it might not be a bad idea to kill Bush.  That pendelum swings both ways.

There is no evidence that the intelligence was made up.  At best, left-wingers can assert that the intelligence was "cherry-picked", though I would be interested to see the difference between the Iraq intelligence and the Afghanistan intelligence in the eyes of those who are making the cherry-picking argument.

" Torture is just as evil whether done by the CIA or the SS."

Well, if all the SS did was semi-drown combatants, you wouldn't know the SS from a hill of beans.  Hitler's scientists sliced open toddlers while they were alive. 

" I am not trying to make an exact or complete comparison,"

Or a reasonable one.

" I am talking about many characteristics of fascism being evident in the Bush years and Rush being a cheerleader for the very worst of them"

Yep, and I am saying you are comparing apples and oranges.  Since you are suddenly into comparisons, maybe you can find me a Limbaugh quote that compares to FDR's internment policy.  Give it a shot.

"Also killing hundreds of thousands of people and violating most of the precepts of the Geneva accords to which the country is constitutionally committed is not what I call making "a mess of things"."

We didn't kill hundreds of thousands of people.  The Constitution makes no reference to the Geneva accords, and we did not violate them when invading Iraq.  This sentence is a mess.

"By the way, the entire "race"( ethnic nationality) of  Japanese people were not interred, just the Americans."

This argument is beyond bizarre.

Thanks, Gwamma.

Ok, so I have been a bit crass in my responses. And as I read this post from derelicte he puts it in a way, I obviously could not.

Squeaky, you are right....no being snippey and you didn't deny it.

Actually had to go to bed and had things to do then troll here all day today. But thanks for thanking of me...
Anyways. I never said Rush was a Saint.
I just defended his free speech.

Isn't that too funny and lame??

Well he has crossed far enough over the line for me. I have known several Limbaugh listeners through the years and 2 of them told me they thought we should kill them all, speaking of Iraq. I think the message gets through loud and clear. The more powerful advocates of violence get the more people die.
The lousy intelligence was made up, which is just the way Adolf did it. Torture is just as evil whether done by the CIA or the SS. I am not trying to make an exact or complete comparison, I am talking about many characteristics of fascism being evident in the Bush years and Rush being a cheerleader for the very worst of them. He still is. Also killing hundreds of thousands of people and violating most of the precepts of the Geneva accords to which the country is constitutionally committed is not what I call making "a mess of things". If it was your mother, or friend or wife or child you would not call it a mess. You would call it what it is: criminal.

By the way, the entire "race"( ethnic nationality) of Japanese people were not interred, just the Americans. Indeed a nasty violation of the constitution, but not really comparable to torture or the mass killing of civilians.

Hey moderators - you didn't have to put MrsH's comments back for my sake!

Okay, if you like him a lot, that's fine. I don't. There's no need to go all attacking because we disagree.