Republican reps push for mandatory gun ownership

@Raggs

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.

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.

That's "why"

"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.

Say What?

"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.

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.

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."

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

Bad Analogy

"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.

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.

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".

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?

guess

Your guess is probably right. However, if someone is breaking into my house at 2 AM I don't think I want to wait 2 hours to get a gun.