RowdyRebel

And I'm sure his patients wouldn't mind being seen by a sleep deprived doctor, after being up driving all night in order to make it back on time to see them. Would United cover the malpractice claims if his fatigue caused him to miss something with a patient? For a trucker, you can still have issues. Or are you forgetting that Walmart driver, who despite being within the HOS at the time of the crash, faced some serious charges because he had commuted several hundred miles in his car prior to beginning his shift? Would United cover my legal bills? If you're retired with nothing better to do, fine. Take the money and wait for the next flight, rent a car, hop on a bus or train, or hitchhike. If you've got responsibilities on the other end that are time sensitive, you simply do not have that option. The airline should respect that, especially after the passengers have boarded and taken their seats awaiting take-off. Easy solution, offer more money to entice people to willingly give up their seat. Eventually, you'll find a price people will be willing to work with you. Everyone has a price, and the higher that price, the more likely they will be to resist a pathetic and insulting offer.

The difference is I would have been polite and respectful in my insistence upon remaining in my seat upon that flight, explaining why I could not accept their pathetic offer to buy my seat back for their employee...until they laid a hand on me. At that point, it is game on. 3 or 4 against 1? Ok. I may get my ass whooped, but I'll send at least 1 or 2 of them to the hospital right along side me. Other passengers might also be caught up in the ruckus, and the interior of the plane might even sustain enough damage that the entire flight may be scrapped while repairs are completed. Sure, I'd likely end up in jail for "resisting", and I'd have a civil rights suit against the rent-a-cops and the airline same as the doctor. Just because you "resist" doesn't mean you can't sue. At least I wouldn't be the only one with a broken nose, missing teeth, and a concussion. The second they lay a hand on me, I have every right to defend myself, and as long as I'm outnumbered, NO amount of force I may utilize using the tools available to me thanks to the TSA security screening will be considered "excessive". My goal would be to ensure at least 2 of them end up worse off than me injury-wise. Like I said, I'm not a "turn the other cheek" kind of guy. I tend to take things to the extreme as well when I'm making a point. That is my seat, that I paid for, and you assigned to me for the duration of the flight...and up until YOU laid a hand on me in an aggressive and threatening manner thereby jeopardizing my safety and security, I had done nothing to warrant being removed from the plane. I'm not intimidated by superior numbers. My dad whooped me enough as a kid that I have a pretty high tolerance for pain, and as a brick layer, he was built pretty solid and could really dish it out. I stopped caring about his whoopings in Jr high, at which point he started using pressure points to encourage submission. He wore those out in high school. Hell, even as far back as my t-ball days, I knew how to set pain aside and get the job done. Hard line drive to the shoulder, I fielded it, threw the kid out, and then worried about how much it hurt. The kid I threw out cried more than I did. In Jr high, I was playing soccer. Broke my thumb blocking a shot (I was the goal keeper), finished the game, and nobody thought it was broke because I was laughing at how deformed it looked. College, we were camping about 5 miles into a wilderness area. Hopping across rocks to cross a stream looking for a swimming hole, my foot slipped on one rock slamming my shin into another. Cut my shin right to the bone. What did I do? Jogged the mile or so back to camp, packed my gear and took down my tent, and carried my stuff back out to the van to be driven to the ER. 4 days later, I was playing softball with my shin stitched together. Few years later, got off my motorcycle the wrong way & broke my collar bone. Picked the bike back up off the ground and pushed it out of the way before having a friend drive me to the ER. Next day, I was under my pickup replacing the starter and putting an exhaust under the thing since I'd have to be driving it for a while. Never did take any of the pain pills they prescribed. In other words, pain has never really bothered me...and in some ways, it only encourages me to push harder. So yeah, bring it on...we'll trash the plane and they'll need multiple ambulances to clean up the mess YOU caused by laying your hands upon me without my consent or approval. That badge doesn't mean a damn thing to me, because underneath that badge, you're a hell of a lot softer than I am...so let's dance. 4 against 1 sounds like a fair enough fight to me. Or, if you want a peaceful resolution to the problem YOU caused through YOUR lack of prior planning, offer me enough to make it worth my trouble getting off the plane...and don't lay a hand on me for any reason.

...and it turns out it wasn't an air line. There's a valve on the top of the transmission that's letting quite a bit of air out. Not certain if it's a "serviceable" part that I can pull off, open up, and change an o-ring, or if I need to replace the valve. Might have to wait 'til Monday to talk to my local Mack dealer...

Food is about the only thing I DON'T carry in the truck...

So I've got an air line leaking, and the best way (so I thought) to get to it was through the floor panel. Guess than means some long-overdue spring cleaning. I've come to the conclusion that I carry WAY too much stuff in the cab of my truck. In case you forget, I have a day cab. Whoever said "there's no room in a Mack" was lying...

I don't know that I'd want to fly United. Bet this passenger wishes he'd been bumped from his flight. Not quite snakes on a plane...but potentially just as lethal. http://www.foxnews.com/travel/2017/04/13/scorpion-stings-man-aboard-united-airlines-flight.html

...and how many millions are there like me, who HAD great insurance that was very affordable and covered everything I might need, but lost it due to Obamacare? The extra taxes and fees imposed in order to subsidize the insurance of others priced my policy beyond what was reasonable for what it was. That and I couldn't add my wife to the policy after I got married. Now, to buy insurance would cost nearly 20 times as much, with a deductible 4 times as high "in network" (which would be damn near impossible given where we live...so realistically more like 8 times as high). On what planet does that make sense to spend significantly more to receive significantly less than an alternative I had already deemed to be not a wise expenditure? Now they want to tack an ADDITIONAL 30% on for the first year? At that rate, they can kiss my ass, because I won't be buying into their bullshit. Obamacare has to go, but replacing it with something worse isn't a good alternative either. There are plenty of people out here who would buy insurance IF it was affordable, and IF it actually covered anything. Problem is, when the deductible is so high the chances are slim the insurance is ever going to pay, why fork over tons of money paying premiums on a worthless policy? That money could be put to better use in a savings account earning less than 0.5% interest.

He paid for that seat on that plane who knows how long ago. Like he said, he had to get home because he had patients scheduled that were relying upon him to be there to see. Why should HIS business have to shut down for a day, leaving HIS customers hung out to dry just because the airline screwed up and overbooked knowing their employees had to get to Louisville? The $800 they were offering wasn't going to cover his losses from taking a flight out the next day...so why should he have accepted it? Hell, $800 wouldn't cover my lost revenues for a day and I'm no doctor! So yeah, the situation could have been avoided had he lost patients because he couldn't see them as promised. The situation could have been avoided if the airline hadn't over booked, or if the airline had offered reasonable enough compensation to have garnered sufficient volunteers so as to avoid forcibly removing paying customers. Hell, the situation also could have been avoided if the airline, realizing the goofed up, made alternate arrangements for their employees...rented a car, put them on a bus, train, or another airline...so as not to inconvenience the paying customers who were already seated on the plane. So yeah, the situation could have been avoided...but had I been in that same situation, I wouldn't have given up my seat either. If you want me to vacate the plane, you need to compensate me for my time waiting for that next plane IN ADDITION TO the lost revenue I'd suffer from not being able to work PLUS the damage to my reputation from missing work. $800 and a motel room doesn't even come close. The one difference between me & the doc is that I wouldn't have sat there peacefully once the punches started flying. I would have defended myself against the aggression. I wasn't raised to turn the other cheek. You hit me, I hit back.

Perhaps that is because in those foreign countries, not everybody CAN fly, so they are used to dealing with people with a little more class who know how to behave? Here, anybody and everybody can afford to fly, and a sense of entitlement permeates amongst the population. Used to be a time here when flying was a big deal...and you dressed "appropriately" for the occasion. I'm sure the decline in quality of service correlates with the decline in the general quality of passengers.

What makes the airline employees ability to get to their job more important than a doctor trying to get to his? Suppose one of his patients suffered irreparable harm due to the delay in treatment caused by him being removed from this flight? What about the lives he might have saved at work that next day? You know what would've been REALLY funny? Ok, maybe not so much "ha ha", but plenty ironic nonetheless...is if a medical emergency happens on that flight. "Is there a doctor on the plane?". No, dumbass. You threw him off the flight! Guess my point is, I wouldn't have given up my seat either for such a small amount, especially if I had somewhere important to be. Then again, I don't fly. I can get anywhere I need to go by driving, and all my stuff gets there at the same time I do...and I don't have to worry about what I can or can't take with me. Hell, quite a bit of my "don't leave home without it" stuff is prohibited on a plane, and I don't leave home without it.

I received a look of shock and a sincere "thank you" the other day at the post office. My wife and I had just picked up our mail and were half way to the car when I saw a lady carrying a postal box stuffed full of outgoing mail. I told the wife "Hang on a sec", turned around, walked back to the post office and opened the door for her. Apparently, it came as a surprise to her that someone would do such a thing. Rare thing these days I guess, seeing a total stranger that not only notices another person might need a hand but actually going out of their way to help even though they hadn't been asked. Hell, I've been noticing most guys seem hard-pressed just to open a door for THEIR OWN gal when they are walking along side her, let alone for a total stranger. I guess my wife is spoiled that way...she doesn't even have to open the car door when I'm with her. Kind of sad more men don't treat their ladies like they are special...but then again maybe they just aren't men or their ladies not all that special. Who knows.

A woman walking down the road in heels exerts more psi on the road than a fully loaded 18 wheeler...figuring a 3" contact patch on an 11" wide tire, the steer tires @ 12K on the axle work out to around 182 psi to the road. Drive & trailer tires are less...129 psi. Compare that to a 120# woman wearing heels that are less than 1/4" square...every time her heel hits the ground, she's exerting more pressure on that spot than the semi that just rolled through. The difference? The truck is contributing a significant amount ($15K+/year) into the highway fund...that woman ain't.

Haha! I'm just the opposite. If I wash my truck, I'm looking for the first mudhole I can find to tear through because I can't stand the way 4x4 trucks with decent sized mud or all-terrain tires look when all clean & polished up. A truck was meant to be used...get a little dirt up on it...put a dent or two in the bed. 4x4? Let them tires fling a little mud up on the fenders. I'd be embarrassed to be seen driving around a spit-polished, clean-as-a-whistle 4x4 pickup truck without a dent or ding on it to be found. Those are "poser" trucks...mall-crawlers, if you will. That's also why I can't see myself buying a new pickup...they sell for nearly twice what I paid for the Mack, and that's just too much to spend on something that I'm going to beat on trying to find its breaking point while I'm taking care of some chores out at the farm.

When they spend the money for its intended purpose, there is more than enough to maintain the roads. Problem is, the highway fund gets mixed into the general fund and pennies on the dollar actually make it to the roads. So, now you want to raise taxes? Still haven't fixed the problem. They'll take that extra revenue and build bike paths or fund schools or police & fire stations, or any of the other areas they cry about when voters have had enough and DEMAND highway fund dollars be spent on the roads. Hell, Illinois just passed a Constitutional Amendment last November with nearly 80% of the vote saying just that...no more diverting highway funds away from our roads. Missouri passed a similar measure a decade or so ago, and their roads quickly went from some of the worst to among the best. Why? Because the money that was collected for the roads was being used on the roads. The money is there. We don't need higher taxes. Just use the money as it was intended. If you can't do that, don't come crying to me saying you need even more money "for the roads".

Now THIS, I can support! Pass this, and THEN worry about how to improve the system. First things first, though REPEAL...and it only takes 1 sentence: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/03/28/alabama-congressman-files-one-sentence-bill-to-repeal-obamacare.html

He'd have much better luck if he got behind a bill that was put together with more input...with more than 17% approval...one that takes into account the great distrust we as Conservatives have in promises made to us by government actually being fulfilled. There is a long history of "we give a little here to get what we want later"...only 'later' never comes. So now, we're expected to climb on board a weak, unpopular piece of legislation while being told "you'll get what you want in phase 3"? We're skeptical there would even be a phase 2, let alone a phase 3...so we'd be trading the Democrats failed Obamacare with a Republican Obamacare-Lite. Democrats would then be able to wipe their hands of this as an issue because the Republicans would own it. Screw that. Either get rid of the damn thing and put in place something that WORKS (as promised during the campaign...you know, the ability to buy across state lines, etc), or do nothing and let the Democrats ride Obamacare into oblivion. Pushing crappy legislation through just to pass something isn't any better than what the Democrats gave us, and it'll suffer the same results at the polls.

And once again, you're full of it. I was never a fan of Ryan's "Obamacare Lite" plan, and would like to see the full repeal of Obamacare, and only replaced with policies which encourage the free market by empowering the consumer. I'm not sure what Ryan was thinking when he introduced his plan, or why Trump would back the plan knowing it didn't do what he said he wanted.

Sure, the "mandate" would've been gone, but in its place a 30% "penalty" for a new policy to be bought by a previously uninsured individual. So, for someone like me who would buy a policy IF I could find one I liked for a reasonable price, it causes those reasonably priced policies to be once again beyond what I'm willing to pay for what they are, leaving me still uninsured. The problem lies in the fact that they want to cover "pre-existing" conditions. That isn't insurance, though. Insurance is a risk management tool. There is a possibility of a given loss, so you buy a policy to cover that loss. The greater the risk of such a loss occurring, the higher the cost of the policy. If you have a "pre-existing" condition, then the loss has already occurred and the company selling the policy has a 100% chance of paying out on a claim. Try buying a flood insurance policy to cover THAT "pre-existing" condition as you're being rescued from your roof. Or a collision policy on your car to cover THAT "pre-existing" condition as the tow truck is unwrapping your car from around the tree. When the condition ALREADY exists, it ceases to be insurance and becomes a payment assistance service...or in any insurance segment OTHER than health, it's simply referred to as "fraud" when you try buying a policy to cover a "pre-existing" condition. I'm currently healthy. It might be 30 or 40 years before I start having health issues. Or, I could have a heart attack or stroke tomorrow. That's why I want insurance..."just in case". The insurance company's risk is no greater selling me a policy today as a currently uninsured individual as they'd be taking on if I currently had a policy elsewhere, so why the penalty? Completely unnecessary, and has a discouraging effect on those who DON'T have insurance making it that much less likely for them to buy a policy.

But who best to determine which coverages are "essential" than the consumer? I've got a friend who's in her early 30's. Her internal lady parts were removed due to cancer, and as a result it is physically impossible for her to get pregnant. Is coverage for child birth essential for her? Or is it a waste of money? I don't really drink...might burn through a 6-pack a year, and I've never taken drugs. Do I really need substance abuse rehab coverage? I'm morally opposed to abortions, and wouldn't ever even consider it as an option. Why should I have to pay for THAT coverage? As soon as somebody else starts telling you what you must buy, you can be certain you'll be buying more than you need. It really should be more like car insurance. Want collision? Buy collision. If not, don't. Same option for comprehensive and any other protections for your own assets. Own a home? You get to choose if you want "extra" coveragges for things such as floods, earth quakes, etc...nobody in government is forcing you to buy "essential" coverages. Sure, if you've got a loan out on the car or home the BANK might say what needs to be covered...to protect THEIR asset as a condition of them loaning you the money...but when you're the only one with skin in the game, your opinion on what may or may not be "essential" should be all that matters. Insurance ought to be a-la-carte. Each coverage has a price, and you pick and choose which ones you're willing to pay for. Nothing should be "mandatory" to buy, because unlike auto liability, you aren't buying coverage to protect the assets of others from damage you might cause. The only assets at risk are your own, and as such, you have every right to choose if, what, and the extent of any and all coverages you might buy.

Just because I don't want to subsidize the lazy doesn't mean I only have a little to show for my hard work. The point is, I work hard for what I have, and as such I should be the one to enjoy the fruits of MY labor. If YOU want to partake in the enjoyment of the fruits of labor, do your own labor to produce your own fruit. It doesn't matter if my labor produces an abundance of fruit, or just enough for me to be happy, it is MY fruit from MY labor, and YOU are not entitled to any of it.

Again, you're taking the scope of an argument and broadening it to ridiculous proportions in order not to sound foolish. We weren't talking harmful or dangerous drugs, only a specific drug that treats a specific disease that just hasn't been approved for use yet by our government. I'm guessing it is likely used and quite possibly even very successfully elsewhere (leading this individual to want to try it to treat his own illness), but it is a prohibitively expensive process to get the official seal of approval from the FDA, and in that process all of your competitor drug makers who have similar drugs already approved are lobbying against approval of your drug because it benefits them to have less competition in the marketplace. So if the drug works with good results, and is available elsewhere in the world and has a proven track record, WHY SHOULDN'T an individual and his doctor be able to decide to use that drug provided the individual pays for it himself? We aren't talking heroin or crack. Actual medications in use around the world with proven track records that just haven't jumped through the FDA's hoops.

Is he saying he's entitled to it as in insurance ought to cover it? Or entitled to it as in he ought to be able to make the decision for himself as to whether or not to pay for the drug himself to treat the disease he has? Because if you're arguing that he shouldn't even be able to purchase the drug on his own because the government hasn't yet given their stamp of approval on it, well then you aren't exactly arguing a conservative point. I understand insurance not covering an unapproved or experimental drug, because as a 3rd party it is in their responsibility to act on what's best for the pool of insured persons which may not be what is best for a specific individual...but the individual ought to be able to make the decision for themselves as to whether or not to spend their own money on an unapproved or experimental treatment if they so choose.

No, they are NOT "the ultimate authority"...or are you forgetting Dred Scott (blacks not entitled to same citizenship rights as whites), Plessy v Ferguson (segregation is Constitutional), Pace v Alabama (bans on interracial marriages are Constitutional), Korematsu (internment camps were deemed Constitutional), Bowers (homosexual acts are a crime), Kelo (property can be seized and reallocated to another private party for commercial use if it will increase the tax base), not to mention Roe v Wade, Obamacare, and the list goes on. The SCOTUS has a long history of issuing rulings that simply do not conform to what would be expected if they stuck to the Constitution as the basis for making their decisions. Our government has 3 co-equal branches, each with checks and balances to keep the others in line. No branch is superior to the other two, and no branch is inferior to the other two. And actually, the power to decide whether or not a law passed by the Congress and signed by the President is Constitutional isn't even a power granted to the court by the Constitution. They seized that power for themselves in Marbury v Madison. Like I said, there's a long history of decisions made by the court having no Constitutional basis...and in many cases directly opposed to what the Constitution would demand.

More people "have" insurance, because the government made an unconstitutional mandate that they buy a policy...just like if the government were to mandate everybody "had" to own an electric car, more people would buy them. They do so because they are afraid of not being in compliance with "the law", because most folks do their best to obey whatever the law happens to be. So now, more people have electric cars because the government says you MUST have one. So when there is a change in government and that silly mandate is repealed, people scrap those useless little shit-boxes because they can't even drive them to town and back without having to recharge the damn thing. Have these people "lost" their electric car? No. They didn't want the damn thing in the first place, so they CHOSE to get rid of it the first opportunity they had under the law. Same with health "insurance". I refuse to buy a policy that covers much of what is mandated by law, especially when purchasing those coverages costs money I work hard to earn, and have much better uses for than paying for useless coverages. I don't need drug rehab insurance. I'm not paying for abortion coverage. Etc., etc., etc. So you take somebody that never really wanted this crap, and give them the option not to buy it. If they chose to cancel their policy, they haven't "lost" it...they CHOSE to rid themselves of it. Freedom was lost when Obamacare was forced through DESPITE the people's strong opposition to the bill...or have you forgotten HOW it was passed? MASSACHUSSETTES elected a Republican Senator to replace Ted Kennedy in order to strip the Democrats of their 60 seat filibuster-proof majority. Scott Brown was the 41st vote against the bill, which left the democrats 1 vote shy of cloture. So what did Harry Reed do? He took a "fiscal" bill that had passed the house, stripped EVERYTHING but the bill number out and inserted the Obamacare language, then proceeded under reconciliation to pass the bill with only democrat votes. Fiscal bills are supposed to start in the people's house, which Obamacare clearly did NOT. Governments derive their just powers by consent of the governed. EVERY TIME the people have had the chance to oppose Obamacare, they have. Democrats lost Kennedy's seat as Massachusetts attempted to stop Obamacare. Democrats lost the House in 2010 to Republicans pledging to stop Obamacare. Democrats lost seats in 2012, and then lost the Senate in 2014 to Republicans pledging to repeal Obamacare. Trump won the presidency, and the Democrats failed to win back the Senate in 2016 under the Republican pledge to repeal and replace. Democrats have lost 1200+ seats nationwide all of the way down the ballot...governorship, state legislatures...because people just don't like what Democrats forced upon them. There is a reason only 5 states out of 50 are controlled by Democrats in both the legislative and executive branches...and one is only because ties in the legislature are broken by the executive. Democrats ARE the minority, and yet they force their agenda as though the people want it. The people have REPEATEDLY rejected what the Democrats have to offer. There is no consent of the governed for the Democrats agenda. There is no consent of the governed for Obamacare. It "passed" in 2008, and to this day has NEVER garnered a majority support in any poll.