‘Memories Pizza’ Truthers

@retire05 #50:
“You’re a joke, George. A sad little man who has no purpose but to try to shove your gay agenda down the throats of others.”

And you’re a joke, too, “Retire05” (as you’re too cowardly to use your own name). A sad little woman (or not – who really knows?) who has no purpose but to spit at and insult people who are different, not possessing the grace and compassion that your “Savior” suggested you adopt.

You laughingly accuse me of “distortions,” while never apologizing for the factual lies you post when confronted with them. How much of a hypocrite does that make you?

I repeatedly post serious discussions, and you ignore them, preferring instead to mock and jeer, not realizing that your tactic makes you a member of the mob that you so earnestly abhor.

My Question to Pete was not a “trap,” as you suggest. It was an honest question that I didn’t know the answer to. Since it became apparent that nobody here knew the answer (or was unwilling to share it for goodness knows why) I went ahead and researched it myself. Here’s what I found:

“A Physician’s Duty to Provide Medical Treatment:

Medical malpractice dominates the headlines, but a more basic legal question involving medical care is what affirmative duty, if any, does a physician have to provide medical treatment. The historical rule is that a physician has no duty to accept a patient, regardless of the severity of the illness. A physician’s relationship with a patient was understood to be a voluntary, contracted one. Once the relationship was established, the physician was under a legal obligation to provide medical treatment and was a fiduciary in this respect. (A fiduciary is a person with a duty to act primarily for the benefit of another.)

Once the physician-patient relationship exists, the physician can be held liable for an intentional refusal of care or treatment, under the theory of Abandonment. (Abandonment is an intentional act; negligent lack of care or treatment is medical malpractice.) When a treatment relationship exists, the physician must provide all necessary treatment to a patient unless the relationship is ended by the patient or by the physician, provided that the physician gives the patient sufficient notice to seek another source of medical care. Most doctors and hospitals routinely ensure that alternative sources of treatment—other doctors or hospitals—are made available for patients whose care is being discontinued.

A Hospital’s Duty to Provide Medical Treatment:

The historical rule for hospitals is that they must act reasonably in their decisions to treat patients. Hospitals must acknowledge that a common practice of providing treatment to all emergency patients creates among members of a community an expectation that care will be provided whenever a person seeks care in an “unmistakable emergency.” Seeking alternative care in a time-sensitive emergency situation could result in avoidable permanent injury or death, so it is not surprising that hospitals are held to a more flexible “reasonable duty” standard in their admission of patients for treatment.

Owing to the high cost of emergency room care, many private hospitals in the early 1980s began refusing to admit indigent patients and instead had them transferred to emergency rooms at municipal or county hospitals. This practice, known as patient dumping, has since been prohibited by various state statutes, and also by Congress as part of the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985 (COBRA) (Public Law No. 99-272), in a section titled Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA) (§ 9121(b), codified at 42 U.S.C.A. § 1395dd). Under EMTALA, hospitals that receive federal assistance, maintain charitable nonprofit tax status, or participate in Medicare are prevented from denying emergency treatment based solely on an individual’s inability to pay. EMTALA allowed private enforcement actions (i.e., lawsuits by individuals) and civil penalties (i.e., fines) for hospitals that violate its provisions. Patients who must receive medical treatment include people whose health is in “serious jeopardy” and pregnant women in active labor. The EMTALA duty to provide treatment may be relieved only if a patient is stabilized to the point where a transfer to another hospital will result in “no material deterioration of [his or her] condition.”

The U.S. Supreme Court in Roberts v. Galen of Virginia, Inc., 525 U.S. 249, 119 S. Ct. 685, 142 L. Ed. 2d 648 (1999), ruled that patients who have an emergency medical condition who are transferred from a hospital before being stabilized may sue the hospital under the EMTALA. The Court interpreted EMTALA to allow any patient to sue under the stabilization requirement, even those who are not emergency room victims of patient dumping. Under the decision, a patient may recover if a hospital transfers the patient without stabilizing his or her condition, regardless of whether the doctor who signed the transfer order did so because the patient lacked Health Insurance, or for any other improper purpose.
Similar federal statutes require that hospitals treat all patients who have the ability to pay. Federal law prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, or national origin, by any program that receives federal financial assistance (42 U.S.C.A. § 2000d). However, Federal law does NOT prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.

Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (29 U.S.C.A. § 794) prohibits federally funded programs and activities (including hospitals that receive federal funds) from excluding any “otherwise handicapped individual … solely by reason of his handicap.”
The broad definition of handicap is “physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more of a person’s major life activities.” This has been construed to include Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome (AIDS) and asymptomatic HIV. Thus, hospitals that receive federal aid may not deny treatment to patients who are HIV-positive or who have AIDS. At the state level, similar legislation protects access to all state-licensed health care facilities and to the services of treating physicians.”

Thus, the short answer to my question is “NO,” except in cases where a patient either has a life-threatening emergency condition or where there already exists a “physician-patient” relationship.

The sole physician in a small town is under no legal obligation to provide medical services to a gay person not already under his care. The gay person may be lawfully discriminated against at will.

That was the answer I was looking for. It confirms my belief that gay people need the protection of non-discrimination legislation.

@George Wells:

And you’re a joke, too, “Retire05″ (as you’re too cowardly to use your own name).

And do you think there is anyone in the civilized world that thinks your real name is George Wells? But before you ask, yes Redteam is my real middle name. My mom and pop were futuristic thinkers.

@Redteam:

And you’re a joke, too, “Retire05″ (as you’re too cowardly to use your own name).

Who else uses their real name on a internet blog? Only a fool. But then, George will have made it easy for some radical Islamist to find him if they are looking for a queer to act violently against.

@retire05: both George and Rich have ‘claimed’ to use their ‘real’ names on this blog. Do a facebook search for either of them and see what shows up. You will not find a Rich Wheeler in the city he claims to live in and you won’t find a George Wells in the whole eastern US. Now maybe I’m naive, but anyone writing as much as they do on this blog is surely on Facebook also. But not under those names.

@Bill #57:

“How about Starbucks prohibiting CHL holders from carrying inside their little yuppie kingdom? Should I threaten to burn them down? Well, no, because I am, first and foremost, totally against paying $3 for a cup of coffee, so I don’t go in there. But, doesn’t this violate my rights? Or do they have the right to decide who comes in their business?”

This is yet another example where there is a conflict between two separate constitutional guarantees. Such conflicts usually end up being decided by the Supreme Court, one way or another. I make a habit of accepting supreme court jurisprudence, whether I agree with the decisions or not, simply because I won’t live long enough to see them overturned.

Gays really need to get their priorities straight……

Islamic State have released more horrific pictures showing the stoning to death of a man accused of being gay.

The blindfolded victim is led into a field in Homs, Syria, with his hands seemingly tied behind his back.

Behind him a crowd of more than a dozen men hurl rocks at him from behind, many not wearing any kind of disguise.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/islamic-state-isis-killers-release-5484046

Islamic State militants and al-Qaida‘s Syrian affiliate appear to have worked together earlier this week to seize a Palestinian refugee camp on the outskirts of the Syrian capital.

http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2015/04/04/397519413/palestinian-camp-in-syria-reportedly-seized-by-extremist-fighters

Among those 18,000 are plenty of gays, if the law of averages applies.
Say, 2%.
That’s about 360 homosexuals who are about to be outed then murdered.

And homosexuals in the USA obsess over petty things while their population worldwide is under attack.
Is it because Obama leads them via dog whistles?
He is pettiness personified.

@George Wells:

That was the answer I was looking for. It confirms my belief that gay people need the protection of non-discrimination legislation.

Did anyone think that if you supplied the answer to your own question that the correct answer would be what you said it would be to begin with? Was that ever in doubt?
I don’t care about the answer to that question one way or the other but:
Are you, George, saying that if a gay person is very irresponsible and contracts a serious disease, let’s use HIV, that the doctor should be required against his will to expose himself to the HIV virus? Now I’m gonna suppose that you desire that a gay person has the right to have unprotected sex with an HIV person at his own risk, but then when he does get that serious ailment, that a doctor should have no choice in having the right to stay away from the HIV patient. That about sum it up Sweet Pea? The gay guy has the right, the doctor doesn’t? So now tell us George, a gay has the right to do what he wants to including contract HIV willingly, but the doctor doesn’t have the right to avoid that HIV patient.
I’m sure all SBS guys will go along with you on that.

@Nanny G:

Is it because Obama leads them via dog whistles?

It’s the old Chicago Bath House Gang.

@Redteam: Are you, George, saying that if a gay person is very irresponsible and contracts a serious disease, let’s use HIV, that the doctor should be required against his will to expose himself to the HIV virus? Now I’m gonna suppose that you desire that a gay person has the right to have unprotected sex with an HIV person at his own risk, but then when he does get that serious ailment, that a doctor should have no choice in having the right to stay away from the HIV patient. That about sum it up Sweet Pea? The gay guy has the right, the doctor doesn’t? So now tell us George, a gay has the right to do what he wants to including contract HIV willingly, but the doctor doesn’t have the right to avoid that HIV patient.

Great point, Redteam.
It continuously has boiled down to ”freedom to chose for ME, but NOT for thee!”
Homosexuals DEMAND their rights to HIV, to cake, to pizza, but it’s never enough.
They ALSO demand you give up all your rights to choice of NOT getting HIV, making cake or pizza for them.
If it is true that George has a mate and his mate makes him a happy person, he is blessed.
Of all the homosexuals I ever knew I rarely saw any of them happy as opposed to manic.
When homosexuals see contented straight people it just fills them with rage at what they call names such as ”hetero privilege.”
The black professor of Gender Studies, Brittney Cooper, called white Christians bigoted, homophobic and racist.
Naturally, after all the name-calling you really want to eat the cake or pizza made by those bigots, racists and homophobes?
It calls to mind little Wednesday Addams who held a cake toward one of her enemies and said, “I made this for you…..EAT IT.”
It also calls to mind why i don’t eat ”fast food.”
In L.A. there was always a news report about people spitting on the food, smearing stuff on it, dropping it on the floor and so on, just because the customer was white or in a nice car.

@Bill:

Well, Nanny G, they DO have their priorities straight. The priority is becoming a political power and doing so through victimhood.

And there lies the truth of the issue.

There are gays who simply lead their lives as they wish. They don’t march, they don’t protest, they simple keep their personal lives personal. They are in all professional fields, from plumbers to computer scientists, but they feel that what they do in the privacy of their own homes is none of anyone else’s business.

Then, there are those like George who are part of the “movement” to force total acceptance (not to be confused with tolerance) on everyone, especially those that have a religious (spelled Christian) objection to the false goal of same-sex marriage. The real goal is to be declared a “protected” class by the federal government. That way Christians, who are NOT a protected class, will be unable to exercise their religious rights ti not participate in homosexual activities like “wedding” ceremonies.

Already, parents are finding it hard to object to having their children taught by a homosexual, even if that teacher likes to tout his/her sexual preferences in class. Our schools are run by liberal left wingers who think it is fine to teach kids that homosexuality is normal, even poor whites have the advantage of “privilege” that others don’t have, Islam is a religion of peace, the disaster that is black communities are a result of slavery and white “privilege” (not their own actions). In my own school district a book that contained pornographic content was forced on a high school freshman class of 13-14 year olds and the school board thought that was fine.

You see, if you’re white, heterosexual, Christian or a conservative Southerner, you are fair game to be ridiculed, verbally abused, protested against and basically intimidated into accepting any politically correct (cultural Marxist) philosophy. I remember when Bob Beckel said, on Fox, that all of Tennessee was made up of “bigoted” white rednecks. Was he made to apologize or offer some mia culpa? Nope. He still has his job. If someone on Fox had said that all of Chicago was made up of black welfare queens or gangbangers, they would have been fired immediately.

@rich wheeler: Actually Rich, you appear on more than just Facebook. For shits and grins I checked. I don’t know if I’d be “advertising” myself out there like that, but that’s your business. By the way, we share the same birthday.

@rich wheeler:

Suggest they get a life and not be so intrusive into others lives—Is that Conservative behavior?

It’s behavior of nosy people regardless of political views. Liberals are no angels either. I’ve seen it enough from both sides. A few weeks ago I had some nosy person call the cops on me because my mutts were in my truck while I was parked in front of my local watering hole. They were fine and enjoy going with me everywhere I go. Even the cop was shaking his head. Now when I go to the watering hole, I leave them at home because whoever called probably lives close by. Whoever it was can feel as though they “saved” my dogs from something. From what, I have no idea. My guess is the nosy bastard probably would not want anyone delving into their domain because they are no angels.

@rich wheeler: Liberals get into people’s personal lives big time as well. I think you are confusing Liberals with Libertarians or classical liberal thought. If the modern liberal wasn’t so keen on getting into people’s personal lives, they wouldn’t support big government. John Stuart Mills wouldn’t recognize modern liberalism. My motto is simple, as long as what I do doesn’t interfere with your safety or rights, leave me the f*** alone!

@rich wheeler: There is little doubt he’ll run. I think Hillary’s bad streak has given confidence to others to challenge her as well. They are beginning to come out of the word work. I think we have already seen who the Republican nominee will be (most likely one of the governors/former governors and NOT Christie). I don’t think the Democrat’s nominee has been seen yet or is at least someone who has so far claimed they aren’t running (yet). It should be a wide open election like ’08, perhaps even more so.

Chicago cab driver, Mahdi Hared, kicked two gay men on first date out of car for kissing: cops
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/chi-police-uber-driver-kicked-gay-men-out-of-car-for-kissing-20150409-story.html

Not the right story for the Left’s ”narrative.”

Chicago police have arrested and charged an Uber driver with assault after allegedly kicking two gay men out of his cab because they were kissing on April 1, the Chicago Tribune reports.

Police have charged Mahdi Hared with one count of aggravated assault / use of a deadly weapon and battery.

No ”hate crime” charge, either.
Just one ”victim class” being oppressed by another ”victim class.”

@rich wheeler: Whoever wins in ’16 will have a tall task in 2020 given that the country has never elected four consecutive two term presidents. 2012 was only the second time in our history that we had three consecutive two term presidents. I know there are historical revisionists who claim that isn’t true because of Truman, but the fact is he was only elected once and if his “first term” was considered as elected then per the 22nd Amendment he would have been prohibited from running in 1952.

As for your #75, whoever would harass you for walking for Goldens, unless they were out of control, has serious issues. Both of my dogs are shelter dogs and mutts. Goldens? They are lap dogs. Only an asshole would have issues with them.

@Redteam: Didn’t know that he was exempted. Shame on me for not reading the whole amendment. Thanks.

@Redteam: A.V found me on Facebook–what’s your problem? I’m not interested in your F.B. page.

@Redteam: Didn’t know you were that” tech backward.” Are you saying A.V. was lying or that I’m not using my real name here and on F.B.?
You are truly a waste of time R.T. Does your family call you Red?

@rich wheeler: Just to set the record straight, I didn’t check FB. I’m on there as well but I don’t go on there much because of the way they operate. I did a Google search and you did appear on MyLife and another site. I didn’t delve past that because I’m not interested. The only other person here I ever checked out was Larry. Being a cancer survivor, I went to his business website to check it out since he is an oncologist and invited me to do so.

HRC won’t get the black vote the way Obama did, especially turn out wise. Depending on who the GOP candidate is, she won’t get the same percentage of the Hispanic vote either. Given the way Obama has alienated working class whites with his racial divisiveness as well as the economic hit they have taken during the “recovery”, HRC is going to have lost ground to make up to get those white voters back. The Dems have taken a major hit with whites since Obama took office. 2008 was a Democrat year and hers for the taking and she lost out to someone who was probably the least qualified candidate to ever run for the WH.

@rich wheeler:

What Repub other than Rubio can cut into Latino vote

For one, Jeb Bush, with his Hispanic wife and his ability to speak fluent Spanish.

Also Ted Cruz, who also speaks fluent Spanish, and who will be introduced by his father, Rafael Cruz.

@rich wheeler: No, they call me Team.

@another vet:

HRC is going to have lost ground to make up to get those white voters back.

If HRC is the Dim nom and she runs against Walker, it will be the largest victory by a Republican since Reagan. Complete blowout.

@rich wheeler:

Basically this is another waste of time and as you suggest–Uncharacteristically intrusive

I find it humorous that you post all that stuff on FB then say it’s intrusive for someone to read it.
But I now see why you keep so many secrets, I wouldn’t want anyone looking at that picture either.

@retire05:

For one, Jeb Bush, with his Hispanic wife and his ability to speak fluent Spanish.

Yeah, I’m afraid he would take down what little fence we’ve put up on the Southern border.

Also Ted Cruz, who also speaks fluent Spanish, and who will be introduced by his father, Rafael Cruz.

Both Cubans.
Ted was born 1/3 American, 1/3 Cuban and 1/3 Canadian. He recently renounced his Canadian, so now he’s only a dual citizen.