Gun Lobby: Healthcare Reform Will Take Away Your Guns

[Pooky 3,930]

How f'n stupid can a human be seriously. Is it even possible to be that dumb?

I think this is political allies helping each other out. Everything but the kitchen has been thrown at health care reform. If it does pass, it will a monumental moment in our history.

Guess why Lieberman opposes the public option so much that he's willing to filibuster? His wife works for the private insurance industry.

Guess why Mary Landrieu supports this Bill? There's a $300m bribe for the state of Louisiana written into it.

If this Bill passes, it will be monumental - a monumental wrong move. If it passes, this country will never see a single payer system in our lifetime, just more of the same f*cked-up compromise and sellout bollocks they're hawking this time around.

I, for one, don't believe that doing something is better than doing nothing, because doing something means they'll never get around to/have to do the right thing.

[scandal 951]

If this Bill passes, it will be monumental - a monumental wrong move. If it passes, this country will never see a single payer system in our lifetime, just more of the same f*cked-up compromise and sellout bollocks they're hawking this time around.

I, for one, don't believe that doing something is better than doing nothing, because doing something means they'll never get around to/have to do the right thing.

Pooky, can you elaborate?

I'm inclined to support the legislation as I understand the House and Senate bills. Not because they are perfect - far from it. Like you, I'd prefer a simple single-payer system which streamlined the claim-form bureaucracy.

However, I accept the fact that the political process is inherently a gradualist one, and one that requires compromise. It's nearly never possible to get a perfect bill and those who wait for one will die waiting. Better to take half a loaf than no loaf at all. As to what this particular half-loaf contains - well, if it ensures that the vast majority of Americans have affordable coverage, that the coverage is portable, and that no one can be denied for pre-existing conditions - that alone seems like a substantial victory to me. For that reason, I'm supportive.

However I do give weight to the concern you raise. If passing this package now in 2009 as constructed will forever doom an even better deal, then that is a substantive reason for alarm. Not alarm for the reactionary reason you hear on VJ so often ("it's socialized medicine! The obama monster is run amok!"), but for a tangible reason I can relate to.

Hence - can you elaborate? I'm seriously interested in your response.

[Dan J 277]

If this Bill passes, it will be monumental - a monumental wrong move. If it passes, this country will never see a single payer system in our lifetime, just more of the same f*cked-up compromise and sellout bollocks they're hawking this time around.

I, for one, don't believe that doing something is better than doing nothing, because doing something means they'll never get around to/have to do the right thing.

Pooky, can you elaborate?

I'm inclined to support the legislation as I understand the House and Senate bills. Not because they are perfect - far from it. Like you, I'd prefer a simple single-payer system which streamlined the claim-form bureaucracy.

However, I accept the fact that the political process is inherently a gradualist one, and one that requires compromise. It's nearly never possible to get a perfect bill and those who wait for one will die waiting. Better to take half a loaf than no loaf at all. As to what this particular half-loaf contains - well, if it ensures that the vast majority of Americans have affordable coverage, that the coverage is portable, and that no one can be denied for pre-existing conditions - that alone seems like a substantial victory to me. For that reason, I'm supportive.

However I do give weight to the concern you raise. If passing this package now in 2009 as constructed will forever doom an even better deal, then that is a substantive reason for alarm. Not alarm for the reactionary reason you hear on VJ so often ("it's socialized medicine! The obama monster is run amok!"), but for a tangible reason I can relate to.

Hence - can you elaborate? I'm seriously interested in your response.

Sustainable healthcare reform is going to take a more significant change than this bill puts forward. Such reform would be too disruptive to ever pass at a federal level, but could possibly happen in some states.

The problem with real reform is that we don't have a good US based system to compare with. Wether it be ego or nationalism, for some looking at other good health care systems around the world is never going to work. It would have been better if the current bill focused on enabling states to drive healthcare reform. It would have at least provided example systems that could be more easily related to and made it much harder to spread FUD.

[ready4ONE 5,400]

How f'n stupid can a human be seriously. Is it even possible to be that dumb?

Spoken as someone who has not followed the gun debate for the last 40 years. This exact tactic has been tried before to ban firearms and ammunition. They have tried to use the FDA and the Consumer Product Safety Commission for the same thing. I have no doubt someone will try this. Legislation was enacted to exempt firearms from these controls...so far. Then they tried product liability to ban firearms, again that hs been shot down with legislation. The anti-gun people have looked for every possible crack or crevice to take away our guns, this will be another, of that I have absolutely no doubt.

The people that wrote that article are NOT stupid, they are experienced.

One of my big objections to turning over health care to the government is that it creates a framework to control nearly every aspect of your life on the basis of healthcare. Canadians pay exorbitant "insurance rates" on their car registration because of the cost of traffic accidents to the medical system, closing in on $400 per year in Quebec, that is in addition to your own liability and collision insurance, and don't even mention the cost of motorcycles! It will be the basis to control what you eat, smoke, drink, drive, shoot, play with. It is opening a terrible door.

Guns could be considered a health issue, and here is how Canada ranked vs the USA in gun deaths:

The gun-related deaths per 100,000 people in 1994 by country were as follows:

• U.S.A. 14.24
• Brazil 12.95
• Mexico 12.69
• Estonia 12.26
• Argentina 8.93
• Northern Ireland 6.63
• Finland 6.46
• Switzerland 5.31
• France 5.15
• Canada 4.31
• Norway 3.82
• Austria 3.70
• Portugal 3.20
• Israel 2.91
• Belgium 2.90
• Australia 2.65
• Slovenia 2.60
• Italy 2.44
• New Zealand 2.38
• Denmark 2.09
• Sweden 1.92
• Kuwait 1.84
• Greece 1.29
• Germany 1.24
• Hungary 1.11
• Ireland 0.97
• Spain 0.78
• Netherlands 0.70
• Scotland 0.54
• England and Wales 0.41
• Taiwan 0.37
• Singapore 0.21
• Mauritius 0.19
• Hong Kong 0.14
• South Korea 0.12
• Japan 0.05

Health officials believe that guns in the U.S.could become the leading cause of death attributed to injury by the year 2003, surpassing injuries due to motor vehicle crashes.

Source: http://www.medicinenet.com/script/main/art...articlekey=6166

[slim 1,533]

I think like many with like-minded views, you confuse responsible caring governments in first world countries, with the old Soviet Union style government. Ironically, the type of freedom you cherish the most, aka literally do as you please, is what I dislike the most about the US. To me, it's the root cause of so many problems the US has; problems that simply do not exist in other first world countries.

I must've missed something here.

A responsible caring government... ah, please give an example. Also, please list a few of these "problems" the U.S. has that aren't seen in other first world countries.

Since we're on the subject of guns and health care, I'd like to first point out that the vast majority of argument for this healthcare bill has been because it's now become a basic "right" for all Americans to have health care. Why it's never been a "right" before but now is, I'm not sure. Anyway, for whatever reason, the politicians that I've heard talk about this new "right" they're trying to mandate we exercise are justifying it by using the "welfare clause." Well, we all know how successful welfare's been.

Secondly (and it's fitting this is Secondly) we have a Right to Keep and Bear Arms that's been long established and is spelled out in very, very plain English. I'm wondering, why haven't they pushed so hard to approve 10 TRILLION dollars for the acquisition, distribution and training of arms? After all, it is a RIGHT! Since they're so keen on MANDATING us to exercise our "rights" now, why not start with this one. There are Americans out there without a firearm and the proper training to use it. That's just simply unacceptable. I mean, come on, Keeping and Bearing Arms is a Right.

Lastly, I'll close with this - Stairs kill almost twice as many people as guns every year in the U.S. but yet I've never once seen an outcry for government-mandated single story buildings. Who knows though, maybe this new govt. healthcare thing will outlaw steps too.

[Pooky 3,930]

If this Bill passes, it will be monumental - a monumental wrong move. If it passes, this country will never see a single payer system in our lifetime, just more of the same f*cked-up compromise and sellout bollocks they're hawking this time around.

I, for one, don't believe that doing something is better than doing nothing, because doing something means they'll never get around to/have to do the right thing.

Pooky, can you elaborate?

I'm inclined to support the legislation as I understand the House and Senate bills. Not because they are perfect - far from it. Like you, I'd prefer a simple single-payer system which streamlined the claim-form bureaucracy.

However, I accept the fact that the political process is inherently a gradualist one, and one that requires compromise. It's nearly never possible to get a perfect bill and those who wait for one will die waiting. Better to take half a loaf than no loaf at all. As to what this particular half-loaf contains - well, if it ensures that the vast majority of Americans have affordable coverage, that the coverage is portable, and that no one can be denied for pre-existing conditions - that alone seems like a substantial victory to me. For that reason, I'm supportive.

However I do give weight to the concern you raise. If passing this package now in 2009 as constructed will forever doom an even better deal, then that is a substantive reason for alarm. Not alarm for the reactionary reason you hear on VJ so often ("it's socialized medicine! The obama monster is run amok!"), but for a tangible reason I can relate to.

Hence - can you elaborate? I'm seriously interested in your response.

I don't agree with the measures set out in the article, but in my opinion, the sentiment expressed is spot on. If this Bill succeeds, politicos will say they've sorted the mess. If it fails, then healthcare reform doesn't work, let's go back to where we were. Either way, single payer recedes further into the future.

Because America doesn't do gradual, incremental change. The effort needed on a subject of this scale to overcome the systemic inertia is simply too much for most politicians to expend. Single payer needed to be a one-shot deal, with Obama, as his first policy action having the Bill sorted and set in front of the House and the Senate, with a "Back Me or Block Me, but understand the consequences for Option 2" message. Both Houses would then have been faced with an stark choice - Healthcare reform or a 4 year lame duck. I doubt the Democrats would have had the nerve to block it.

[Heracles 417]

I must've missed something here.

A responsible caring government... ah, please give an example. Also, please list a few of these "problems" the U.S. has that aren't seen in other first world countries.

Since we're on the subject of guns and health care, I'd like to first point out that the vast majority of argument for this healthcare bill has been because it's now become a basic "right" for all Americans to have health care. Why it's never been a "right" before but now is, I'm not sure. Anyway, for whatever reason, the politicians that I've heard talk about this new "right" they're trying to mandate we exercise are justifying it by using the "welfare clause." Well, we all know how successful welfare's been.

Secondly (and it's fitting this is Secondly) we have a Right to Keep and Bear Arms that's been long established and is spelled out in very, very plain English. I'm wondering, why haven't they pushed so hard to approve 10 TRILLION dollars for the acquisition, distribution and training of arms? After all, it is a RIGHT! Since they're so keen on MANDATING us to exercise our "rights" now, why not start with this one. There are Americans out there without a firearm and the proper training to use it. That's just simply unacceptable. I mean, come on, Keeping and Bearing Arms is a Right.

Lastly, I'll close with this - Stairs kill almost twice as many people as guns every year in the U.S. but yet I've never once seen an outcry for government-mandated single story buildings. Who knows though, maybe this new govt. healthcare thing will outlaw steps too.

You have certainly missed a lot. In particular, the numerous posts regarding my boasting of the wealth and quality of life of Australians in comparison to that of Americans. The various posts and points I have made over the last few months answer all of your questions and pointed out all of the "problems" and differences between the US to the rest of first world countries.

Right to bear arms is ridiculous. Nothing else to it.

Dude, what welfare did you give in the first place for it be successful? Come on. It says something that someone on welfare in Aus actually earns more than someone working a 40 hour minimum wage job here.

Edited November 24, 2009 by Booyah!

[slim 1,533]

You have certainly missed a lot. In particular, the numerous posts regarding my boasting of the wealth and quality of life of Australians in comparison to that of Americans. The various posts and points I have made over the last few months answer all of your questions and pointed out all of the "problems" and differences between the US to the rest of first world countries.

Sorry, I didn't have time to read all of your various posts over the last few months, I've been out every weekend exercising my American rights by training people how to shoot rifles.

Right to bear arms is ridiculous. Nothing else to it.

No, what's rediculous is a "knife amnesty program" and the fact that 93% of those killed by firearms in Australia were done so with unlicensed and unregistered firearms. Nearly half of the murderers had criminal records and more than a third of the victims did as well. Murder victims in NSW were 15 times more likely to die by knife than by gun.

Progress?

My big question is are the people in Australia going to stand up to their government, if needed, with spoons? Or will those be illegal by then too?

Dude, what welfare did you give in the first place for it be successful? Come on. It says something that someone on welfare in Aus actually earns more than someone working a 40 hour minimum wage job here.

Exactly. It says it's only a matter of time before all those Aussies start gathering up whatever spoons or logs or table legs or whatever they're lawfully allowed to possess and assemble to petition their government for redress of grievance. See, they have to "petition" because they're asking nicely. In the U.S., we have a right to ask nicely before we take action. However, once the die is cast, and we've run out of "petitions" then we no longer have to ask nicely.

Did you say someone on welfare "earns" something?

[Pooky 3,930]

In the U.S., we have a right to ask nicely before we take action. However, once the die is cast, and we've run out of "petitions" then we no longer have to ask nicely.

I am always amused whenever someone alludes to a civil revolt in the USA and thinks that it might work. Back in the 18th Century, when messages went by horse, taking days to get to the people they were meant for, and muzzle-loaders were de rigeur on the battlefield, I'd say yes, there was a good chance it would work. The American Revolution was touch and go for a long time, but it worked out in the end.

If you think a civil uprising could work today, you need to see someone professional, and soon. Decisive action may not be the government's forte, but faced with organized civil unrest, you can bet there will be little procrastination before an armed and armoured response is committed. Disregarding the speed at with the government will be able to target overwhelming forces to put down any such movement with prejudice, it would be a field day for the criminal element to go to town and kill, loot, burn and destroy what they wanted, so that whoever comes out of organized civil unrest on top, most likely the government, will have a ravaged and chaos-stricken shambles of a country to piece back together. Or, worse still, fragments of a country going their own way and the break-up of the USA.

The Founding Fathers lived in a different day and age than we do. But times have moved on. We no longer live in a time where revolution occurs in the civilised world. That's what democracy is for. Votes don't kill people, but they can still bring about change. And the government has better eyes and ears and bigger guns.

Edited November 25, 2009 by Pooky

[Ban Hammer 14,665]

If you think a civil uprising could work today, you need to see someone professional, and soon. Decisive action may not be the government's forte, but faced with organized civil unrest, you can bet there will be little procrastination before an armed and armoured response is committed. Disregarding the speed at with the government will be able to target overwhelming forces to put down any such movement with prejudice, it would be a field day for the criminal element to go to town and kill, loot, burn and destroy what they wanted, so that whoever comes out of organized civil unrest on top, most likely the government, will have a ravaged and chaos-stricken shambles of a country to piece back together. Or, worse still, fragments of a country going their own way and the break-up of the USA.

The Founding Fathers lived in a different day and age than we do. But times have moved on. We no longer live in a time where revolution occurs in the civilised world. That's what democracy is for. Votes don't kill people, but they can still bring about change. And the government has better eyes and ears and bigger guns.

did you forget about the rodney king riots in la?

[HAL 9000 96]

The government is going to get all of us.

[Pooky 3,930]

If you think a civil uprising could work today, you need to see someone professional, and soon. Decisive action may not be the government's forte, but faced with organized civil unrest, you can bet there will be little procrastination before an armed and armoured response is committed. Disregarding the speed at with the government will be able to target overwhelming forces to put down any such movement with prejudice, it would be a field day for the criminal element to go to town and kill, loot, burn and destroy what they wanted, so that whoever comes out of organized civil unrest on top, most likely the government, will have a ravaged and chaos-stricken shambles of a country to piece back together. Or, worse still, fragments of a country going their own way and the break-up of the USA.

The Founding Fathers lived in a different day and age than we do. But times have moved on. We no longer live in a time where revolution occurs in the civilised world. That's what democracy is for. Votes don't kill people, but they can still bring about change. And the government has better eyes and ears and bigger guns.

did you forget about the rodney king riots in la?

I said organised, not spontaneous.

For an organised civil uprising, the government would not use local law enforcement. They would get heavy and quickly. They would do it out of necessity to avoid outside agencies/countries/terrorists taking advantage of the confusion. And any response would likely be with deadly force from the outset.

[Ban Hammer 14,665]

If you think a civil uprising could work today, you need to see someone professional, and soon. Decisive action may not be the government's forte, but faced with organized civil unrest, you can bet there will be little procrastination before an armed and armoured response is committed. Disregarding the speed at with the government will be able to target overwhelming forces to put down any such movement with prejudice, it would be a field day for the criminal element to go to town and kill, loot, burn and destroy what they wanted, so that whoever comes out of organized civil unrest on top, most likely the government, will have a ravaged and chaos-stricken shambles of a country to piece back together. Or, worse still, fragments of a country going their own way and the break-up of the USA.

The Founding Fathers lived in a different day and age than we do. But times have moved on. We no longer live in a time where revolution occurs in the civilised world. That's what democracy is for. Votes don't kill people, but they can still bring about change. And the government has better eyes and ears and bigger guns.

did you forget about the rodney king riots in la?

I said organised, not spontaneous.

For an organised civil uprising, the government would not use local law enforcement. They would get heavy and quickly. They would do it out of necessity to avoid outside agencies/countries/terrorists taking advantage of the confusion. And any response would likely be with deadly force from the outset.

it was still a civil uprising, which was in your first sentence.

Edited November 25, 2009 by charles!

[mawilson 2,133]

For an organised civil uprising, the government would not use local law enforcement.

What would they use? They cannot use the military for law enforcement in the US - there's a Federal law against that.

[Ban Hammer 14,665]

For an organised civil uprising, the government would not use local law enforcement.

What would they use? They cannot use the military for law enforcement in the US - there's a Federal law against that.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posse_Comitatus_Act