Too bad the current legislation does nothing more than codify the broken system into law. I knew it was going to stink the minute I heard the White House was cutting back room deals with big pharma. So much for openness and transparency.
The fact is I have no choice whatever about my insurance.
If you want choice then you'd better be opposing the current legislation at the top of your lungs, because it specifically denies you choice since you already have insurance through your employer.
Single payer is DOA because of two things: the Republicans (which IMO is stupid of the Democrats) and the insurance lobby, who pays off congresscritters from both parties.
It has nothing to do with the "insurance lobby". It has everything to do with the republicans and blue dog democrats. Both are philosophically opposed to the notion of government run health care. You really think that would change if it wasn't for the insurance lobby?
They tax gasoline at a higher rate than alcohol, but if that tax's purpose were to get people to use less gasoline they'd tax the purchase of SUVs at a higher rate than sedans as well
The implied purpose of the gasoline tax is to pay for the highway trust fund. It doesn't have a whole lot to do with discouraging people from driving.
I'd rather have direct government bureaucracy than insurance company bureaucracy
You'd rather have bureaucracy backed with guns than bureaucracy you can leave at anytime?
(which is why we have the current clusterfuck legislation instead of a Canadian or European style plan).
No, we have the current clusterfuck legislation because the Democrats know that single payer is dead on arrival. Do you seriously believe that the only thing stopping single payer is the evil insurance companies? You really think you could get single payer through the United States Senate or even the House if it wasn't for the insurance companies?
But they managed to do it without medical records, and I don't see how my own medical records could confirm or deny who my anscestors were.
You kinda missed my point there. The Government used census records to help with rounding up Japanese-Americans. Census records are protected by law and supposedly can't be used for any other purpose. Yet they were.
Sorry, I don't want Uncle Sam anywhere near my health care, thank you very much.
It's not up to government to keep you from eating too much, drinking too much
You do realize that the government taxes alcohol at a rate higher than most other products, right? It's only a matter of time before some jackass politician gets the notion that we should do the same for food that they perceive is bad for you.
The nanny state has already arrived. Some people think that we should continue to expand it and don't realize the inherent contradiction between turning to the government for help and wanting the government to stay out of our lives.
Criminal investigations. Security clearances. Background checks for gun/business/teaching/etc licenses. Mass deportations (don't laugh, the Federal Government used census records to find Japanese-Americans in the 40s). It doesn't take a vivid imagination to picture the Government abusing it's access to medical records.
Other countries have government-run health care, and they have better care, are healthier, and pay a whole lot less on it.
Nothing in the current legislation will accomplish the goal of paying a "whole lot less for it".
My dad has government health care (Medicare) and he's happy with his.
A sizable majority of Americans are happy with the care they have now, do they get a vote against health care "reform"?
General Welfare clause is a perfectly reasonable justification to the constitutionality of federally run healthcare.
It's not "Federally run healthcare". It's a mandate from Uncle Sam to do business with a private entity. The Constitution doesn't give the Federal Government the power to compel me to do business with a private enterprise.
You make the implicit assumption that medical problems occur dramatically and in a short period of time.
And the people who want an individual mandate make the implicit assumption that people are going to try and game the system.
The fact of the matter is that you could avoid this whole debate by putting a waiting period on benefits. That's the way flood insurance works. But the Democrats won't even consider this idea because they can't stand the notion that someone might make the wrong choice and wind up having to suffer the consequences of that choice.
Combo locks are better, because they don't require keys. But if you are awake the gun can just as easily be on your hip. Your kids aren't messing around with it when it's under your direct control. At night I would sleep with my bedroom door locked and the pistol safe already open. If you have to get up to deal with the kids then you swing the safe shut as you leave the room or grab the gun and keep it on your person.
Of course parenting plays a role too. By the time we were old enough to pick up a gun we knew better than to touch one if our parents weren't around. My parents never locked up the guns and we managed to grow up without blowing our heads off. I can't say that I would be that liberal with my kids -- I can't control how their friends are raised and would keep my guns locked up for that reason alone -- but people used to be and you didn't hear about too many accidents.
Get rid of them and have the government pay for your health care, and our costs (the highest in the world) will drop to where more civilized countries' costs are, and our health will be markedly improved. Your higher taxes will more than be made up by not having to pay insurance premiums.
And the Government will have your complete medical record on file. How long do you think it will be before they start using it for other purposes With your well known mistrust of the police I would think that having the Government involved in your health care would be the last thing that you would want....
Unless everybody is required to carry insurance, exclusions for pre-existing conditions are inevitable. Otherwise everybody would just wait until they got sick to buy insurance (i.e. it wouldn't really be insurance any more).
This is a bullshit argument. Can you honestly say that you envision people in the ambulance having a heart attack on the phone trying to buy health insurance? "Hey Mr. EMT, can you hold off on that oxygen mask for a minute? I gotta call my insurance agent..."
I think making people buy health insurance (from private companies, or as a tax) is a good thing
Yeah, except for the fact that it's blatantly unconstitutional. Of course that's never stopped the Federal Government before....
Shot twelve times, let me just remind you of innocent bystanders and the effective lethal range of un-aimed bullets. Each and every shot presents an additional risk of shooting some innocent bystander, a child, someone's grandmother, a father blithely working in a building down the block or a mother in her kitchen. Twelve shots in completely unacceptable in an urban environment.
The NYPD did a study one year. It concluded that their officers hit what they were aiming at only 20% of the time. Yet they didn't have any innocent bystanders killed by police guns. A bullet has a pretty small cross section and it's actually a rare event for one to hit an innocent bystander.
That doesn't make it anymore acceptable when it does of course.
That's not so much the problem, "Cops shoot unarmed man 12 times" is.
Being unarmed doesn't always make a bad shoot. If there's a significant disparity of force deadly force may well be justified. There was a shooting around here not that long ago where some scumbag jumped a cop. The cop tried to tase him and failed. Got the shit beat out of him. He eventually shot the guy because he felt that he could no longer defend himself and would be at the mercy of this individual. It went before a Grand Jury and they called it a justified shoot.
I don't know about the law in the UK but in the US three conditions generally need to be met before deadly force is acceptable:
Someone has the ability to cause serious bodily injury or death.
Someone has the opportunity to do the same. A person with a knife at 100 meters has ability but no opportunity.
Someone is using both of those things to place another in jeopardy. This usually means they've communicated the intent to kill or cripple. Your buddy at the pistol range with you has ability and opportunity but no intent to kill you.
There are a few exceptions. In most American states you can use deadly force against someone who breaks into your home, regardless of any demonstrated intent on his part to kill you. Cops can use deadly force against fleeing felons in certain situations. A would be rape victim can use deadly force against her attacker regardless of any intent on his part to kill her.
Even shots to the head don't necessarily stop unless you've taken out some part of the brain
There was a Japanese fighter pilot in WW2. He mistook a torpedo bomber (from the USS Enterprise no less) as a fighter. He walked right into the line of fire of both rear gunners and took a.30-06 to the head. It blinded him in one eye and paralyzed half his body but he still managed to fly his plane home and land it in one piece.
Never underestimate what the human body is capable of.
You guys are idiots. Arguing over which gun is best to stop an intruder, when in reality it'll be which gun your son accidentally blows his sister's head off with.
That's why there's this fancy new technology, called locks. They open containers called safes. Perhaps you've heard of some of these recent scientific advancements?
There's also another method, it's called parenting. This doesn't seem to be real popular these days though. It's usually outsourced to something called 'television'.
Slashdot Mirror
If 25 State Legislatures, acting on the People's direction, declare a U.S. law to be unconstitutional, then it should be nullified.
That would have taken care of the assault weapons ban about ten minutes after Clinton signed it into law.
If 25 States declare a law "unconstitutional" then that law should be null.
If only there was an institution where the states could have a voice on Federal legislation.....
Some communities think using technology past the 1600s is "obscene", why the 1600s? Fuck if I know...
That's not entirely true. Those same communities love their repeating firearms ;)
Because Verizon and Verizon Wireless ARE TWO SEPARATE ENTITIES.
You do realize that Verizon owns 55% of Verizon Wireless and effectively has total control over it's management and operations, right?
Too bad the current legislation does nothing more than codify the broken system into law. I knew it was going to stink the minute I heard the White House was cutting back room deals with big pharma. So much for openness and transparency.
but the Ds had the votes to completely ignore the Rs.
Not without the moderates in their own party, whom would oppose a single-payer system.
The fact is I have no choice whatever about my insurance.
If you want choice then you'd better be opposing the current legislation at the top of your lungs, because it specifically denies you choice since you already have insurance through your employer.
Single payer is DOA because of two things: the Republicans (which IMO is stupid of the Democrats) and the insurance lobby, who pays off congresscritters from both parties.
It has nothing to do with the "insurance lobby". It has everything to do with the republicans and blue dog democrats. Both are philosophically opposed to the notion of government run health care. You really think that would change if it wasn't for the insurance lobby?
They tax gasoline at a higher rate than alcohol, but if that tax's purpose were to get people to use less gasoline they'd tax the purchase of SUVs at a higher rate than sedans as well
The implied purpose of the gasoline tax is to pay for the highway trust fund. It doesn't have a whole lot to do with discouraging people from driving.
I'd rather have direct government bureaucracy than insurance company bureaucracy
You'd rather have bureaucracy backed with guns than bureaucracy you can leave at anytime?
(which is why we have the current clusterfuck legislation instead of a Canadian or European style plan).
No, we have the current clusterfuck legislation because the Democrats know that single payer is dead on arrival. Do you seriously believe that the only thing stopping single payer is the evil insurance companies? You really think you could get single payer through the United States Senate or even the House if it wasn't for the insurance companies?
But they managed to do it without medical records, and I don't see how my own medical records could confirm or deny who my anscestors were.
You kinda missed my point there. The Government used census records to help with rounding up Japanese-Americans. Census records are protected by law and supposedly can't be used for any other purpose. Yet they were.
Sorry, I don't want Uncle Sam anywhere near my health care, thank you very much.
you also don't have the demotivating factor of Vinnie showing up to break your kneecaps when you don't pay up.
Yeah, but at least Vinnie can't get Uncle Sam to bail him out when he makes a series of stupid decisions and runs his business into the ground.
It's not up to government to keep you from eating too much, drinking too much
You do realize that the government taxes alcohol at a rate higher than most other products, right? It's only a matter of time before some jackass politician gets the notion that we should do the same for food that they perceive is bad for you.
The nanny state has already arrived. Some people think that we should continue to expand it and don't realize the inherent contradiction between turning to the government for help and wanting the government to stay out of our lives.
Such as?
Criminal investigations. Security clearances. Background checks for gun/business/teaching/etc licenses. Mass deportations (don't laugh, the Federal Government used census records to find Japanese-Americans in the 40s). It doesn't take a vivid imagination to picture the Government abusing it's access to medical records.
Other countries have government-run health care, and they have better care, are healthier, and pay a whole lot less on it.
Nothing in the current legislation will accomplish the goal of paying a "whole lot less for it".
My dad has government health care (Medicare) and he's happy with his.
A sizable majority of Americans are happy with the care they have now, do they get a vote against health care "reform"?
General Welfare clause is a perfectly reasonable justification to the constitutionality of federally run healthcare.
It's not "Federally run healthcare". It's a mandate from Uncle Sam to do business with a private entity. The Constitution doesn't give the Federal Government the power to compel me to do business with a private enterprise.
The RIAA cases were civil suits. The worst they can do to you is force you to file bankruptcy. BFD.
You make the implicit assumption that medical problems occur dramatically and in a short period of time.
And the people who want an individual mandate make the implicit assumption that people are going to try and game the system.
The fact of the matter is that you could avoid this whole debate by putting a waiting period on benefits. That's the way flood insurance works. But the Democrats won't even consider this idea because they can't stand the notion that someone might make the wrong choice and wind up having to suffer the consequences of that choice.
Private corporations can't put you in jail.....
Combo locks are better, because they don't require keys. But if you are awake the gun can just as easily be on your hip. Your kids aren't messing around with it when it's under your direct control. At night I would sleep with my bedroom door locked and the pistol safe already open. If you have to get up to deal with the kids then you swing the safe shut as you leave the room or grab the gun and keep it on your person.
Of course parenting plays a role too. By the time we were old enough to pick up a gun we knew better than to touch one if our parents weren't around. My parents never locked up the guns and we managed to grow up without blowing our heads off. I can't say that I would be that liberal with my kids -- I can't control how their friends are raised and would keep my guns locked up for that reason alone -- but people used to be and you didn't hear about too many accidents.
Get rid of them and have the government pay for your health care, and our costs (the highest in the world) will drop to where more civilized countries' costs are, and our health will be markedly improved. Your higher taxes will more than be made up by not having to pay insurance premiums.
And the Government will have your complete medical record on file. How long do you think it will be before they start using it for other purposes With your well known mistrust of the police I would think that having the Government involved in your health care would be the last thing that you would want....
Unless everybody is required to carry insurance, exclusions for pre-existing conditions are inevitable. Otherwise everybody would just wait until they got sick to buy insurance (i.e. it wouldn't really be insurance any more).
This is a bullshit argument. Can you honestly say that you envision people in the ambulance having a heart attack on the phone trying to buy health insurance? "Hey Mr. EMT, can you hold off on that oxygen mask for a minute? I gotta call my insurance agent..."
I think making people buy health insurance (from private companies, or as a tax) is a good thing
Yeah, except for the fact that it's blatantly unconstitutional. Of course that's never stopped the Federal Government before....
Shot twelve times, let me just remind you of innocent bystanders and the effective lethal range of un-aimed bullets. Each and every shot presents an additional risk of shooting some innocent bystander, a child, someone's grandmother, a father blithely working in a building down the block or a mother in her kitchen. Twelve shots in completely unacceptable in an urban environment.
The NYPD did a study one year. It concluded that their officers hit what they were aiming at only 20% of the time. Yet they didn't have any innocent bystanders killed by police guns. A bullet has a pretty small cross section and it's actually a rare event for one to hit an innocent bystander.
That doesn't make it anymore acceptable when it does of course.
That's not so much the problem, "Cops shoot unarmed man 12 times" is.
Being unarmed doesn't always make a bad shoot. If there's a significant disparity of force deadly force may well be justified. There was a shooting around here not that long ago where some scumbag jumped a cop. The cop tried to tase him and failed. Got the shit beat out of him. He eventually shot the guy because he felt that he could no longer defend himself and would be at the mercy of this individual. It went before a Grand Jury and they called it a justified shoot.
Oscar the Grouch can say "Even if you're mad or are trying to impress someone, guns aren't to be played with or pointed at people."
You know, I'd actually like to see that just to see the reaction to it. I bet it would burn up quite a few news cycles ;)
I don't know about the law in the UK but in the US three conditions generally need to be met before deadly force is acceptable:
Someone has the ability to cause serious bodily injury or death.
Someone has the opportunity to do the same. A person with a knife at 100 meters has ability but no opportunity.
Someone is using both of those things to place another in jeopardy. This usually means they've communicated the intent to kill or cripple. Your buddy at the pistol range with you has ability and opportunity but no intent to kill you.
There are a few exceptions. In most American states you can use deadly force against someone who breaks into your home, regardless of any demonstrated intent on his part to kill you. Cops can use deadly force against fleeing felons in certain situations. A would be rape victim can use deadly force against her attacker regardless of any intent on his part to kill her.
Even shots to the head don't necessarily stop unless you've taken out some part of the brain
There was a Japanese fighter pilot in WW2. He mistook a torpedo bomber (from the USS Enterprise no less) as a fighter. He walked right into the line of fire of both rear gunners and took a .30-06 to the head. It blinded him in one eye and paralyzed half his body but he still managed to fly his plane home and land it in one piece.
Never underestimate what the human body is capable of.
You guys are idiots. Arguing over which gun is best to stop an intruder, when in reality it'll be which gun your son accidentally blows his sister's head off with.
That's why there's this fancy new technology, called locks. They open containers called safes. Perhaps you've heard of some of these recent scientific advancements?
There's also another method, it's called parenting. This doesn't seem to be real popular these days though. It's usually outsourced to something called 'television'.