Shopsmith Forums

WmZiggy wrote:I should just say "whatever" here, but it is hard to let it pass.

"People like me??" You don't know a thing about me, except what I have disclosed.

You talk about "balance", and then misread me into arguing for prostitution, heinous acts, etc... Sorry guy, I'm not against rules as long as they don't violate the Constitution. Last time I looked, prostitution and heinous acts are not protected behaviors. If you don't like religious freedom, take it up with Constitutional Framers.

You hit the nail on the head....All I know about you is what you have disclosed...in these posts...Which I interpret as what you want me to know or think of you....

You may indeed be the kindest of souls and very charitable....but that is not what I have seen...Rather a different picture...

My argument is not with you about that particular issue of prostitution but rather the need of society to restrain it's worst actors against their own free will....I also call to your attention that neither you or I get to interpret The Constitution but that is the obligation of The Courts...Our obligation is to comply with their judgment...

I chose to stand with the honest hardworking little people who do get up in the morning and show up and do their job to the best of their abilities...It is unfortunate that you feel that they are oppressing you..Perhaps by telling where they require you to park on their private property....I can only wonder what a greeting I will get when I park on your lawn?..

Cheers

steve4447 wrote:You hit the nail on the head....All I know about you is what you have disclosed...in these posts...Which I interpret as what you want me to know or think of you....

You may indeed be the kindest of souls and very charitable....but that is not what I have seen...Rather a different picture...

My argument is not with you about that particular issue of prostitution but rather the need of society to restrain it's worst actors against their own free will....I also call to your attention that neither you or I get to interpret The Constitution but that is the obligation of The Courts...Our obligation is to comply with their judgment...

I chose to stand with the honest hardworking little people who do get up in the morning and show up and do their job to the best of their abilities...It is unfortunate that you feel that they are oppressing you..Perhaps by telling where they require you to park on their private property....I can only wonder what a greeting I will get when I park on your lawn?..

Cheers

Really? If those honest hardworking little people(waaaay too many 'inflammatory' adjectives!) are truely doing as they are told, one cannot have an 'issue' with them. However an issue is raised towards those telling them what to do. Tis the 'tellers' that are exercising 'oppression'. A public place(parking lot or whatever) is not a private property.

As for Joe citizen having the narrow 'duty' to only comply by higher decrees, I call your attention to the actions of Joe citizens towards decrees made about 250 years ago.

No we are all responsible to each other to minimize the trodding upon others regardless of 'high-minded' individuals(lawyers etc. and otherwise) thinking 'they' know what is best for Joe.

Was the person who told your friend they couldn't leave the house for any reason (including to go to church) attempting to punish your friend for exercising their constitutional right to worship, or were they trying to enfore a neutral rule to make sure your friend wasn't unnecessarily taking advantage of Medicare?

As I understand it, Medicare generally prefers for the patient to go to the p/t's office if possible (rather than sending the p/t to the patient's home) because it costs Medicare less. Thus, Medicare only allows in-home p/t if a doctor determines the person isn't well enough to leave his/her home.

Once a person is well enough to leave the house for any reason, that person probably doesn't need the more expensive in-home p/t anymore. It doesn't matter if the person leaves the house to go to church or to go to a movie.

algale wrote:Was the person who told your friend they couldn't leave the house for any reason (including to go to church) attempting to punish your friend for exercising their constitutional right to worship, or were they trying to enfore a neutral rule to make sure your friend wasn't unnecessarily taking advantage of Medicare?

As I understand it, Medicare generally prefers for the patient to go to the p/t's office if possible (rather than sending the p/t to the patient's home) because it costs Medicare less. Thus, Medicare only allows in-home p/t if a doctor determines the person isn't well enough to leave his/her home.

Once a person is well enough to leave the house for any reason, that person probably doesn't need the more expensive in-home p/t anymore. It doesn't matter if the person leaves the house to go to church or to go to a movie.

The 'category' is homebound when in home care is being 'dispensed'. A patient may leave the 'home' for Dr appointment, worship, or beauty salon.

I did not make this up, so do not expect me to explain it!

JPG40504 wrote:The 'category' is homebound when in home care is being 'dispensed'. A patient may leave the 'home' for Dr appointment, worship, or beauty salon.

I did not make this up, so do not expect me to explain it!

Makes sense. I can't wait to go the beauty salon....

[quote="algale"]Was the person who told your friend they couldn't leave the house for any reason (including to go to church) attempting to punish your friend for exercising their constitutional right to worship, or were they trying to enfore a neutral rule to make sure your friend wasn't unnecessarily taking advantage of Medicare? [quote="algale"]

No, no punishment. I felt it fit here because the nurses' aid was obviously not informed and assumed that "homecare" meant you are not to leave your home. I am sure she wasn't trying to be cruel.

I thought the story was worth writing-up because it dealt with the "tyranny of bureaucracy", which is more prevalent with government agencies than private business, as a rule of thumb. The more government you have the more rules you have as well as "Catch 22s". Just look at the IRS. I think we have had a recent example of that tyranny.

If private businesses engage in tyranny, they usually go out of business. People don't like it! It's called freedom, trust, civil behavior, and a host of other values we all value. We don't want to be treated as slaves. You know, Medicare comes at a price and not just tax dollars.

As to the DOJ people in the world, thank you for your work. I have only been in prison one time - to have lunch with the warden of the State Prison in Bismarck, ND. I had to buy furniture for a State building which the inmates created and sold. Prison, by it nature, has lots of rules. I understand that. However, people who work in that environment can get a definite view of the world. It's not unlike the intelligence officers I worked with in the Army and the Air. All day long, they read and study worst case scenarios that COULD happen. It was an apocalyptic worldview all day. I would, as a chaplain, warn them not to get a "skewed perspective" on life, events, and people. I choose to believe that faith, hope and love are a more powerful reality than chaos, despair, and hate.

You are all entitled to your opinions but lets not all sound like a bunch of bitter old men...

My understanding of law as explained by one of my favorite professors was distilled down to this....Reasonableness....Hence the often cited Reasonable Man Test...(And he also said ..."Where in the world would The Court find one?)....

In short you can do anything..Regardless of what The Law says ...That you can convince A Court of Law ...was Reasonable ...In that Court of Law....In a quiet Courtroom at a later date....but you will have to justify yourself to that Court...

Constitutional Freedoms are not absolute....The often cited freedom of Speech and ..shouting FIRE ..in a crowed theater...Ditto with Slander....If the decisions were easy...They would have never come to Court .....And The Court is not God and it can't always be right.....But it is the system that we live under...The alternative I visualize is blood feuds....and the biggest guy gets it his way...

At one time our Great Constitution...had no problems or conflict with ...Slavery..Indentured Servitude....Women being denied the vote...and many other errors....Which were amended through the prescribed process....

If people were always reasonable....we would not need The Law...The Code of Hammurabi goes back to 1772 BC...and I doubt it is the first Law..

Bitter?

Greatly concerned fer sure!;)

Most cranky old fogeys are that way because they know of better times that young whippersnappers have no experience with!:)

[quote="JPG40504"]Bitter?

Greatly concerned fer sure!]

I will add an amen to that.

You can always employ the "Ignore" function. Works great.