Republican politicians in South Dakota have filed a bill that would require every citizen in the land-locked virtually empty state to buy a gun as of next year. The bill, put forward by Sioux Fall representative Hal Wick, would require every citizen over 21 to buy a firearm "suitable to their temperament, physical capacity, and …
Filed under 'personal preference'.
If it shoots bullets, it's a gun.
Outstanding! I'd love to see the holster for that one.
RE: Re: GAU-8
Whilst the idea did make me chuckle, there are already very tight guidleines on what gets classed as a firearm and a multi-barreled aircraft cannon (even if you could lift one) is not included. However, there is nothing to stop you risking your wristbones with such OTT weapons as the Thompson Center Arms Contender in .30-30 (a rifle round more powerful than the M-16's 5.56mm NATO cartridge), the S&W .500 Magnum (for those "Deagles are for wimps" moments), or the .50 Alaskan (designed for killing the large bears found in Alaska!).
As to the comment that the low population density might be responsible for the low murder rate, this is reflected in the fact that the places in the US with the highest gun murder rates are cities (Washington and Chicago) where personal firearms are banned, but then surely that just proves the old adage that guns don't kill people, politicians do.
Just walk down any street in that state
Plenty of holsters. They call them trucks there.
No - I want a Gau 19
If it is good enough for Drake it is good enough for me.
Anyone guess the reference?
Screw uncharted, Blaine started it with the general electric M134 Minigun.
It made him a god damned sexual tyrannosaur.
Re: Re: Re: GAU-8
To be fair, the 5.56mm NATO cartridge is fairly weak, as far as weapon cartridges go - allegedly, it was designed to badly injure, not kill.
An injured soldier takes more of an enemy's resources than a dead soldier, assuming that the enemy soldiers care about their injured fellow soldiers. (And, I've heard that the US military is switching to larger calibers for the Iraq war, because of enemy soldiers NOT saving their wounded, and because 5.56 can't get through walls.)
Predator - great film
I had completely forgotten than quote - thanks for reminding me.
You know why Aliens don't visit us?
They are scared of Arnold Swarchenegger
Actually it was the chewing tobacco that made Blaine a god damned sexual tyrannosaur.
Presumably the fact that he used an M134 also made him a serious motherfucker which, when combined with the former, is a fairly nasty place to be. Especially if you are his mother.
The design of bullets used by Military personnel is governed by the Geneva Convention, that bans such things as Dum-Dums. This however does not prevent private individuals or law enforcement using really nasty rounds. Penetration is about more than just calibre though, obviously the bigger, heavier and faster the projectile the more it will penetrate, but a small object moving very fast can do as much damage as a heavier slow movingly object, it's physics.
The thought behind just wounding your enemy is that, soldiers tend to fight better if they believe they will be rescued and treated for their injuries, so medi-vac tends to be a fairly large drain on resources, as each wounded man would take up to three people to evacuate.
The average insurgent is safe in the knowledge that he isn't coming back, and his enemy will take care of him if he's wounded.
A rusty hackeysacker is better than a new one...
Training a soldier is very time consuming and expensive. So is getting green troops seasoned so they last longer. Removing an arm or leg is preferable to having a dead soldier. Even if they're sent back home, they can still fight. You'd have to show that injuries such as paralysis and mental degradation outweighed non-functional injuries, which you can't.
America! Fuck yeah!!
But you should be able to buy "offshore". A Belgian P90 with a silencer and an Israeli Elbit Falcon red dot sight, please.
On second thoughts, the silencer is probably prohibited by Federal Law. :-(
Hell yes. It is right after the DAO-12 on my personal list of "favourite things to shoot whenever i get the chance."
Cool idea, make mine a .50 cal barret sniper rifle and a 3 inch morter. Need to sort out both slugs and moles in the back garden. (I know moles should eat slugs, but my moles are veggies and deserve to be hit with a 3inch morter shell)
If Obamacare is Constitutional (legal for those across the pond) then this is legal as well. Once Congress can force you to do something against your will "because it's good for you" there is a slippery slope that never ends.
9 year old won't eat his vegetables? That a fine from the government. After all, everyone knows vegetables are good for you so the government might as well make a law that forces kids to eat them!
You're a huge fatty? That's a fine from the government. Everyone must buy gym membership and attend gym classes to stay fit. After all, it is in your best interest to not be a fatass.
So what's the difference?
How come police, fire services, welfare (the amount you have), border services are all constitutional? Everyone is made to have them, everyone (who works) pays for them, and get no say in it. How is nationalised healthcare any different to police and fire services? There's probably hundreds of nationalised services (damn socialists!!!!!) around, that everyone is just used to.
The US government already pays far more per head on healthcare than most (if not all) nationalised healthcare countries.
It turns out, the Founding Fathers would beg to disagree.
The people who drafted the constitution already created mandated healthcare so you obvious aren't in touch with the ideals behind those who created the country that you claim to love.
A compulsory education might have been in your best interests.
Are you one of the cranks who also argues that taxation is unconstitutional? Or does the not-even-slightly subtle distinction between universal healthcare and obligatory ownership of an item really stretch your braincells?
Oh ... and Constitutional is not the same as legal on either side of the pond. Although on this side of the pond it could also refer to taking a stroll. Perhaps we should make those obligatory ... it would have been a better use of your time than burbling on about slippery slopes.
And does this make sense?
"Once Congress can force you to do something against your will "because it's good for you" there is a slippery slope that never ends"
And it is also true that once Congress can force you to do something against your will "because it's bad for you or bad for others" there is a slippery slope that never ends.
The conclusion must therefore be that, to avoid any slippery slope, Congress must not dictate anything to anyone. So it can be gotten rid of, people can sort out their problems for themselves, last man standing wins, law of the jungle applies.
1. "Constitutional" and "legal" are not the same thing. "Legal" means something is consistent with all statutory law. "Constitutional" means only that something is consistent with the Constitution and its Amendments.
2. Since the heath care package is a federal bill and this is a state bill, the constitutionality is completely different. Besides, some individual mandates have already been upheld at both the state level (state-specific auto insurance requirements, for example) and the federal level (e.g, income tax filing and payment.) So this bill parallels the health care bill in much the same way that a walrus parallels a dimetrodon.
3. The individual mandate in the health care bill has NOTHING to do with forcing you to do what's good for you. Health insurance doesn't improve your health one bit. The mandate is in the bill to ensure the largest possible pool of insured individuals. This would, in theory, keep the insurance cost per individual as low as possible because it's spread among more people.
4. The slippery slope argument is a logical fallacy (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope#The_slippery_slope_as_fallacy). In particular in this case, you argue that allowing Congress to pass one individual mandate will lead to them passing more and more intrusive individual mandates. Yet as I mentioned in point 2, the former has already happened, and the latter has not happened as a result. Instead we continue to have strong debates in this country every time an individual mandate of any form is proposed -- and even those few that do get passed are almost invariably challenged in the courts.
Because Obamacare is NOT nationalized healthcare. It's simply a requirement that each person buy health insurance from one of the same miserable insurance companies that already exist. This is directly analogous to forcing people to buy any other product.
Same thing, it's reasonable for the government to take your tax dollars and buy guns (for the military, police, etc) but it's not reasonable to force YOU to personally buy a gun.
"Because Obamacare is NOT nationalized healthcare. It's simply a requirement that each person buy health insurance from one of the same miserable insurance companies that already exist."
It's the same thing, it's just making sure that insurance companies (and their lobbies) buy into it. National healthcare would be the same thing, with the gov cutting out the middle man - something big business wouldn't care for.
We in the UK pay for healthcare too, but we just pay for it through tax and NI contributions. Obama has just done a sleight of hand with how it's paid for, and kept the lobbies on board. The alternative would be a tax increase and a massive reduction in health insurance.
Actually it makes no sense
Bullseyed I'm starting to wonder if the US is populated by morons. How else to explain the anger that the government is trying to extend health cover to everyone, to remove some of the most egregious abuses by insurers, and actually save the taxpayer money in the process by reducing / eliminating existing plans. That's without even considering how many people who might not die thanks to having some form of health cover. The outrage!
Anyway your argument is a classic slippery slope fallacy.
The mandate Has nothing to Do With Making the Pool Large
I agree with you on all points except number 3
The mandate has nothing to do with ensuring the size of the pool. It resulted from the simple fact that you cannot force the insurance companies to ignore pre existing conditions without forcing everyone to purchase insurance. If the insurance companies cannot bar you on the basis of preexisting condition and you were not mandated to purchase insurance then no one would. You would simply wait until you are sick or aged to purchase insurance .. the old idea of a moral hazard.
This is also the reason that the piece meal approach suggested by the Republicans like most other things they have been pushing for the past few years makes no sense. The bill could only have been comprehensive and had to have the mandatory clause if it was going to also have a no pre existing condition clause.
Its also odd that the reps opposed the bill so strongly given that it was mainly a set of recycled republican proposals from Nixon era and from their proposals in 1993-94. In fact the mandatory proposal was the root part of their 1993 proposal.
Makes it real obvious to sensible people that the axe they are grinding is related to something else and that at best they have no credibility.
Remember, the only significant Healthcare bill they passed in their immediate 8 years tenure was the Medicare Drug Bill which was written by the drug companies and is expected to cost as much as $1.3 trillion
Actually, it does make sense
The problem is twofold:
1. The US government is completely incompetent at running many social programs, healthcare for the poor being one of them. Fraud, massive corruption within the organization, and mountains of paperwork that mean that you die before you finish the paperwork to get the healthcare you need mean that our government shouldn't be allowed anywhere near healthcare. Even if government can do healthcare right, OUR government can't.
2. This isn't government healthcare (well, OK, the government will pay for healthcare for lower income citizens.) This is the government mandating that everyone buy from the existing plans from the existing corrupt, abusive companies - not reducing the plans. It does compel insurers to provide coverage, whereas they didn't have to before, but it has no price controls. Before, insurance companies had to compete with not buying insurance at all. Under this, you have to buy from the oligopoly of insurers, whether you like it or not, and therefore it's far WORSE than before - insurers can jack up their prices FAR higher, because your other option is going to jail.
Why then do I have to have Car insurance? If I don't have it, I get a fine up to $1000. What the difference between Car and Health insurance?
I would be rather suprised to find any US state mandates auto insurance.
Prohibiting driving without it is another matter entirely.
Mine's the one without a driver's license in the pocket.
Actually, there have been a reason for that.
IIRC, in the past, private fire companies and police agencies started blackmailing potential customers by employing tactics normally associated with the Mafia (Buy a contract with us or you never know what might happen to your house, hint hint). It was a case of capitalism and competition gone haywire, and everyone was doing it in a desperate bid to earn enough money to be viable. The government was pressured to act, and the end result was to establish de jure monopolies on those services...by running it themselves so that there was a chain of responsibility in case things went wrong.
Mind you, I could be mistaken, but that's what I read once.
Apples and oranges
The thing I find highly ironic is that if the Democrats had had a pair amongst them and pushed for a single payer, government run health system the plan WOULD pass Constitutional muster. Essentially we'd be talking Medicare/Medicaid writ large. The US government would collect more income taxes (allowed by the 16th amendment) and wasted the money to cover medical expenses. Instead they turned chicken and passed a bill with the "individual mandate" that isn't going to work.
There's a fundamental principle at work here that apparently some people are too obtuse to grasp. If the US government wants to operate a plan and tax the public in order to do so, it's Constitutionally allowed. Foolish, wasteful and ultimately doomed to failure but Constitutional.
On the other hand if the US government says "you must buy this product because we say so" then we have a problem here. After all, if the US government by act of Congress can make you buy health insurance then what CAN'T if make you buy? If the commerce clause has no limits to the authority granted Congress then a number of our rights specified in the 5th, 7th and 9th amendments become meaningless.
We haven't touched the fact that health insurance policies are NOT in fact issued across state lines so the idea that Congress can regulate it as interstate commerce is a rather shaky proposition to begin with. One that the courts haven't had a chance to comment on at this time.
How many people will die, "saving" taxpayer money are all nice emotional arguments that really miss the point. I'm being kind here because some political figures have no excuse for not understanding the problems with the individual mandate program. There are lots of things government "could" do that would save a lot more lives like banning automobiles and motorcycles altogether and making everyone use some sort of public transit. Or outlaw any activity that could result in bodily harm such as skydiving or bungee jumping. But at what cost to individual freedom? Freedom to only make nice, safe choices isn't freedom at all. Cattle are safe. Cattle are fed regularly, get free health care and, for a cow, a nice place to stay. Cattle are NOT, however free.
If you want to be cattle, fine by me. I'd plan on staying free.
First, the analogy is wrong in the fact that gun ownership is a one-off purchase vs medical insurance which is an ongoing commitment.
Secondly, the problem isn't so much people don't want healthcare. They do. It's the fact that some people (like my wife) who are young, in excellect health, visit the doctor only once or twice a year for a wellness exam, still have to pay $250/mo. for "insurance." And that wonderful insurance requires the usual $50/visit copay, and only covers 75% (sometimes 90% depending, but sometimes 50% or less depending too) of whatever services rendered. If you get into decent plans that don't cost you 50% of a visit out-of-pocket, you're looking at $400+/mo. And to mandate everyone fork over such fees, especially when some young (no longer on parent's plan) blokes only earn $6-10/hr, would utterly destroy their ability to be self-sufficient. So no, the problem isn't the healthcare, it's the incumbant cost of the insurance, in addition to the out-of-pocket costs of actually having to use it.
Sorry but we don’t have a National Police, Fire service or Emergency services. Those services are not listed as Federal government responsibilities. Only the Federal Government can make agreements (treaties) with other countries and that the bases of the Border Patrol/Immigration Service/Coast Guard and other similar Federal Agencies.
"let's call it say a "tax", and imagine if that forced payment was used to pay for services people might not want like police, fire services, and the military."
Indeed. Many people have had serious problems with this. Google "Kent State" for an example of people wanting not to participate in, or pay for, the military.
The difference between legal taxes and Obamacare is (1) in the case of taxes, you pay the government but in the case of Obamacare, you pay a corporation. (2) in the case of taxes, they are indexed usually to income and are also usually "progressive" in that the rate of tax is less for poorer people. Poll taxes are a fee for existing, basically, the same for everyone and would be considered extremely "regressive" in a tax scenario. A rich man of 30 years old may be paying the exact same $5,000 per year that a poor man also of 30 years old must pay.
"I mean it's just stupid, if I want to be able to murder someone why should I have to pay a for a police force for example? They'll only come and arrest me for murder and that's not what I want so I shouldn't have to pay."
Indeed it would be stupid for a murderer to obey all or any other law. A person is either law abiding or not (more or less); which is indeed the whole point of the gun control (elimination) versus gun control (steady aim) debate -- criminals already obey NO laws except as an accident or convenience.
This is why famous gangsters such as Al Capone were eventually jailed on tax evasion charges. Murderers really don't have a reason to pay taxes.
"I mean no one should be able to force me to do anything against my will."
Perhaps you could reveal an instance where anyone DID succeed in forcing you to do anything against your will. Keep in mind you used the word "force"; I will accept strong persuasion if you cannot think of an instance of actual force being used against you.
Re: It turns out, the Founding Fathers would beg to disagree.
One minor niggling point. Damn near everyone in the US with a job already pays some variant of TDI (Temporary Disability Insurance) that is a compulsory deduction from their paycheck. I suppose it would be nice if it were only 1% and I'm sure someone pays that little. More to the point, it isn't the 1% really it's another 1% and another and another.
You forgot to mention, gubbermint also requires some professions to piss in a cup or pay to join the professionals club or pay state certification fees. The point is, back then the sailors could choose to say "screw this" and go work on a farm out on the frontier which could be just as dangerous. Hospitals? Half the time, it was some politically connected oligarch running you into the ground. With the current compulsory health insurance, the only alternative a person can choose is to die, oh wait, that's illegal unless it happens naturally but the docs can always hook you up and make your body tick on so that option is out. Here I thought it was rough getting them to pull the plug under the republicasses.
Besides, why should we need more broken insurance? If they want to nationalize it, just do it and stop screwing around. It's like the bloody cigarette tax. "We won't ban them but we'll tax" the living shit out of smokers under the pretense of paying for health care. What do you mean that isn't enough? A pack of butts in NYC is over $10 on a product cost of under $1. Here's an idea, tax health care at the same rate and every little trip to the ER when Jonny has a runny nose will cover the poor schlub who has a heart attack on the metro stairs.
I could understand perhaps catastrophic health insurance for the major problems, you know, blown motor or bent chassis type of things. But, I don't see a need for insurance that covers lube jobs, tire rotations and the like and yet that is all we get to choose, I mean, will be forced to take. Let me choose my insurance, I can handle a high deductible and I'm sorry if you can't. I really only need someone to cover that kidney or some such down the road should mine go bad before the rest of me. Unfortunately the Mass. law limits deductibles and if yours is too high, you get fined even when you already have insurance. Why should I have to cough up a $15 co-pay and be limited to 30 pills each month on a $22 prescription? Thank goodness for online Mexican pharmacies. I appreciate the gubbermint's efforts but why do they have to be so god damn stupid about it? I suppose by Un^H^HNanny Sam's standards, I should feel privileged I get to wipe my own nose instead of being required to hire some certified "professional" in a white frock to do it for me.
It wouldn't bother me so much if gubbermint weren't full of incompetent half wits who sit about pondering what to screw up next and then proceed to do it.
"How come (should be: why are) police, fire services, welfare (the amount you have), border services (are) all constitutional?"
The answer is these are neither commanded nor prohibited by the U.S. Constitution. Cash money welfare is not and probably cannot be a federal program, there is no constitutional provision for it. The British don't really have a system of autonomous states -- Wales, Scotland and so forth are vaguely similar in that regard. But crime and welfare are state issues; each state has its own criminal code.
The US Federal Government has a long list of things it is not supposed to do and a short list of things it is permitted to do. Everything else is left to the states or to the people (10th Amendment and the foundation of the modern American "Tea Parties").
Anything not prohibited is therefore also not unconstitutional.
Involuntary servitude is prohibited. Mandatory purchase of life insurance is effectively involuntary servitude of the amount of labor it takes for you to earn the money to purchase the mandatory life insurance. in the past such schemes were known by "poll tax" and is dangerously close to mandatory union dues to join a mandatory union to obtain employment in a "closed shop" state. This is the Dark Side of socialism -- socialism and liberty CANNOT co-exist except in the extremely rare instance of people actually choosing a cooperative lifestyle (Iceland is or was a pretty good example 20 years ago).
"There's probably hundreds of nationalised services around, that everyone is just used to."
Yes indeed, but all are fairly recent developments. As recently as 1925, the town where I am now living had THREE distinct electrical distribution companies -- each with its own power distribution wires and poles.
Curiously enough, a British-style National Health System would be constitutional. Not particularly wise, but at least Constitutional and the British continue to provide excellent examples of its good and bad (allowing a man to die of thirst in a HOSPITAL!) sides.
To use a historical example, the United States is believed to have come into existence more or less as a consequence of the Stamp Act by which the King of England imposed a tax on tea. Today that seems pretty ordinary but it ruffled some serious feathers.
It appears that the King should have taken a page from the U.S. Democratic party and required American colonists to BUY TEA, and of course, pay the tax. Alternatively, you could pay the penalty -- the price of the tea, and not actually take possession of the tea. A poll tax in other words. You will pay $5,000 per year because you exist.
No Need to Do It Again
"The people who drafted the constitution already created mandated healthcare "
Then obviously there is no need to do it again.
Are you really this... I cannot think of a word for it
"What the difference between Car and Health insurance?"
One insures damage either TO your car or caused BY your car. The other pays all or part of the cost of medical treatment to you.
My mother does not have Car insurance. She also pays no registration fee! She is also at no risk of a fine, penalty or jail.
How is such a thing possible? Were you lying? No -- you just aren't telling enough of the truth to make it "truth".
My mother does not drive. At all. Hasn't done so in probably 40 years.
Automobile insurance exists to protect OTHERS from your own foolish driving behavior.
You don't even need that in most western states; you can post a "bond of financial responsibility" with the state.
Finding a doctor RIGHT NOW is no easy task. Just wait until 30 million more people are suddenly chasing the same doctors. You probably think that "health insurance" is somehow the equivalent of "health care".
"Yet as I mentioned in point 2, the former has already happened, and the latter has not happened as a result."
Since the former has NOT happened, the factuality or lack thereof of the latter remains to be seen.
What you and ten million other dimwits are saying is the former -- automobile insurance -- fails as an example. NOBODY is compelled to buy automobile insurance -- it is a requirement only for people that wish to use government-provided highways and exists in direct response to the danger that you pose to those other people also using the highway.
A proper parallel would be IF you wish to use government health care, THEN you must pay. That is reasonable and is already the case. Payroll taxes already deduct rather substantially for this purpose.
Second, not every state requires "insurance". Many western states allow to post a bond of financial responsibility. Rich people, for instance, don't need "insurance" as they can easily pay outright the same amount that insurance would pay, typically $100,000.
Americans already know these facts but continue with the bad analogy anyway for less-obvious socialist purposes.
this would be "constitutional"
"The alternative would be a tax increase and a massive reduction in health insurance."
Such a thing would be Constitutional in the United States.
You Misrepresent the Story
Enacting a TAX is constitutional, using that tax to operate hospitals is also constitutional. That is what your cite speaks of. It is NOT speaking of an illegal scheme to force sailors to pay Aetna Insurance (for instance) directly. Such a thing is NOT Constitutional, although its end effect may not be particularly different.
I suggest also the 14th Amendment prevents unequal treatment -- citizens of the United States would be paying "tribute" to Aetna Insurance (for instance), which might not necessarily even be a United States Corporation, and in return, Aetna then becomes unequal -- superior to -- the citizens from whom it collects this tribute.
"First, it created the Marine Hospital Service, a series of hospitals built and operated by the federal government to treat injured and ailing privately employed sailors. This government provided healthcare service was to be paid for by a mandatory tax on the maritime sailors (a little more than 1% of a sailor’s wages), the same to be withheld from a sailor’s pay and turned over to the government by the ship’s owner. The payment of this tax for health care was not optional. If a sailor wanted to work, he had to pay up."
"Or does the not-even-slightly subtle distinction between universal healthcare and obligatory ownership of an item really stretch your braincells?"
I don't even understand your question.
There appears to be no discussion in the United States about universal healthcare. The debate is about mandatory purchase of a piece of paper from a corporation. It might, or might not, turn into healthcare for any particular person for any moment in time depending upon need and availability.
"I don't even understand your question."
Well no. But then you don't understand the slippery slope fallacy or the difference between legal and constitutional either. I'd love to help you out of your greased pit of ignorance, but there's a limit to how much I can type in these boxes so all I can really do is repeat my recommendation for mandatory comprehensive education.
I'm in favor of single dimensional uneducated arguments are bad for you
so you shouldn't be allowed to use them.
The "You're a fatty, you should join a gym" thing actually works well in places that enforce that. Currently, there are trials in areas of Japan that tax companies for employees with unacceptable waist line measurements. So, you better be worth it or they'll find someone that won't cost them that extra tax to employ. Either that or try something filling and healthy for lunch instead of that 42 layer fast food burrito lard ass. In fact, it's a damn good idea. Something like that could possibly save my fat ass sister's life and avoid making my niece and nephew unhealthy fat assed orphans.
9 year old kid won't eat his vegetables... well guess what... he/she is a kid, they wouldn't fine the kid, they'd fine the parent. And guess what. If your kid won't eat properly, the solution is simple, starve the little bastard until he/she picks up a fork full of carrots.
I'm an American in a country where even the cops don't carry guns, health care is provided from my tax money, even for the asshole druggy pissing on himself outside the train station and I wouldn't trade it for the world. The health care quality here is far better than in the U.S. on average and snotty assed American's like me can still pay a little extra and get even better care if we choose to. The difference is, instead of having half the country sitting on the couch sucking up all my tax money on their welfare checks while drinking it all in cheap beer like Shlitz while shooting beer cans in the window with a .22 because the .44 rounds are too expensive, they're out working. In fact, the government even sponsors jobs for people that "can't work" doing things like licking envelopes or stamps and painting plastic dohickies we sell to idiot tourists.
Because of that, more people get off their asses and work and we're one of the richest countries in the world. You want Obama to fix the economy? Well let him, universal health care is one of the #1 ways to do it. Problem is, you fat redneck ass might have to actually work for a living then instead of sitting around talking about how mexicans keep stealing all the jobs... Of course, I'm sure there are plenty of jobs like theirs waiting for you. Head out to a cheap motel and clean rooms for $1 a piece. You can wash the puke fested toilets, wash the hair grease stains from the head boards and peel the cum and public hair covered sheets off the beds. Maybe if you're lucky some redneck will offer you extra tips if you wear a minidress and pretend to be his naughty little bitch.
Quit your democrat/republican bullshit and take some time to think for yourself. Instead of reading the headlines of new rags and watching Fox TV, try reading something intelligent instead. Educate yourself and realize that there's more to it than just what's on the surface.
I am not in the loop and the only thing I can do to try and solve the problem is to attempt to educate mule brained idiots like you to at least keep your pie holes shut in the future until you have an intelligent thought to share. You on the other hand seem to prefer to just bitch about how the guys who are actually trying to make a positive difference aren't doing it in a way that provides you with 1% taxes and cheap beer.
Which is the system that actually works
Most "nationalised" health systems out there work under this principle. It is considered to be the best working system.
In fact most of Eastern Europe converted their NHS style healthcare into mandatory insurance based one over the last 10 years.
As far as "miserable" there is a minor difference between a mandated insurance and the classic US dog eats dog version. In a mandated insurance system the prices are regulated so that the different providers and insurers cannot drive the usual "profit at the expense of a dying man" spiral.
If the Obamacare bill also introduced the sam pricing controls as presently used for access to medicare/medicaid funding I am not surprised that all neocons have started screaming murder. It is a system that actually is known to work.
Auto insurance primarily protects others. Health insurance primarily protects self. But you knew that :-)
The difference being if you don't own a car you don't have to buy car insurance. To not buy health insurance you have to be dead. Obviously, you have a choice about buying car insurance. You don't have a choice about buying health insurance. Actually you do have a choice.However, you can buy a car later, you can not come back to life.
Paris because she may be able to do what medical science cannot do.
To find out if we have a gun...
If you want to see what kind of gun we're using to day, look in our pickup. If you stranded and needed get someplace, the key is in the ignition.
Its called self reliance, its called integrity. Try it you will like it.
No need to actually *buy* a gun, then?
It would be interesting to see data on the different states and if there is a link between gun ownership and deaths by guns (or bullets, not rounds, anyway).
I would imagine though that 'gun ownership' is a lot different to 'access to a gun' in that I'm sure that there must be plenty of guns in the hands of people other than their proper, licensed, owners.
I'm sure that if there was conclusive data that showed that the more guns there were the higher the gun-related death rate, people would be giving up their guns in no time....
I only did states where gun access [aka what I could find in 30 seconds] was above 50%. Gun study was 2001, crime was 2010, so YMMV there. List is: state, % access, overall crime rank (1 is bad), violent crime rank (50 is bad)
Al 51.7 40 23
Ak 57.8 37 6
Ar 55.3 41 11
Id 55.3 5 42
Ms 55.3 28 31
Mt 57.7 7 41
Nd 50.7 3 49
Sd 56.6 9 46
Wv 55.4 11 39
Wy 59.7 6 43
To my eye, no clear correlation between reported crime or violent crime and gun access, but I'm not a statistician.