General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsWhat if the Government told you that for safety's sake, you must purchase a gun?
Last edited Thu Jun 28, 2012, 02:06 PM - Edit history (2)
(I didn't post this in the Gungeon because it's about mandatory purchases, not merely guns.)
Let's say law enforcement became as broken as the health care system* and we came to a point the public agreed that it needed more "protection" than they already have.
What if the Government responded by saying you must purchase a handgun? If you're poor, of course, you can get one for free or at a discount. Failure to do so will cost you more than you already pay in taxes.
The Supreme Court just paved the way for this potential episode of madness.
* wait, it isn't already?
Edited to add: you might want to consider looking into past history before you respond. Gun ownership was actually mandatory by law back in the day and this fact has been used to defend this new mandatory purchase law. Oh and here's a thread where DUers actually CITED this mandatory gun ownership law to justify the mandatory health insurance purchase law.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/101624252
sharp_stick
(14,400 posts)This is getting funny.
How many ways can people lose this "the Government can make you buy anything now" argument?
broccoli, electric cars, hybrid cars, organic foods, now guns.
madmom
(9,681 posts)sufrommich
(22,871 posts)FarLeftFist
(6,161 posts)Zalatix
(8,994 posts)Please, tell us that Cornell University is wrong. Please. The word PENALTY is listed seven times just in this part alone:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/26/5000A
(1) In general
If a taxpayer who is an applicable individual, or an applicable individual for whom the taxpayer is liable under paragraph (3), fails to meet the requirement of subsection (a) for 1 or more months, then, except as provided in subsection (e), there is hereby imposed on the taxpayer a penalty with respect to such failures in the amount determined under subsection (c).
(2) Inclusion with return
Any penalty imposed by this section with respect to any month shall be included with a taxpayers return under chapter 1 for the taxable year which includes such month.
(3) Payment of penalty
If an individual with respect to whom a penalty is imposed by this section for any month
(A) is a dependent (as defined in section 152) of another taxpayer for the other taxpayers taxable year including such month, such other taxpayer shall be liable for such penalty, or
(B) files a joint return for the taxable year including such month, such individual and the spouse of such individual shall be jointly liable for such penalty.
(c) Amount of penalty ...
TheWraith
(24,331 posts)FIRST. TIME. EVER.
thecrow
(5,519 posts)I wouldn't want to shoot the damned thing.
frazzled
(18,402 posts)I think the folks making these kinds of arguments need to go to a libertarian or Republican board to talk. I'm getting mighty tired of it of these "give me liberty" rants.
Bake
(21,977 posts)The mandate is seriously flawed. But DU doesn't get it--and you are a prime example of that.
Am I glad Obama got a big victory? Of course. But I was never a fan of the legislation without a public option.
Bake
frazzled
(18,402 posts)And the supreme court disagrees with you. The mandate is constitutional. If you don't want insurance, fine. Then pay the penalty. I don't care. That's what makes us "free."
Bake
(21,977 posts)SCOTUS has spoken. Just like they did on Citizens United. They get the last word, but that doesn't make them RIGHT.
Yeah, I get it.
Bake
frazzled
(18,402 posts)In the Citizens United cases it was Scalia, Thomas, Alito, Kennedy, and the Chief Justice.
So, no, you don't get it. The court's members who stand on our side were the ones who voted in favor of this one, with Roberts breaking the tie this time in our favor and denying the conservative side its usual majority. Citizen's United was upheld by the bad guys.
Bake
(21,977 posts)Not just "our side" or "their side."
The majority on the Court gets the last word. Sometimes it goes our way. Sometimes it doesn't.
Bake, Esq.
IndyPragmatist123
(42 posts)Seriously, I hate the mandate. I wanted a PO. It just seems like everyone is all caught up in the fact that our side won to actually look at the decision's impact.
What we once hated and considered to be a handout to insurance companies is now worthy of praise? I don't get it. This was a bad idea in the 90s when the Republicans supported it and it's a bad idea now. We need to stop with this cheerleading and start using our brains.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)I'd rather have a framework to amend, than starting over with what we had before. Now, a few pages of legislation could provide a public option.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)Examples of the public option working well in blue states will make it much easier to pass elsewhere.
TheWraith
(24,331 posts)The single-payer systems that people here idolize so much also contain a mandate, and it's one WITHOUT the ability to opt-out for a paltry $100 that they can't even collect on. To try and argue that the mandate is somehow an affront to liberty is basically no different from saying that single-payer is evil too.
progressivebydesign
(19,458 posts)Zalatix
(8,994 posts)Then you're going to have a heart attack when you find out that DUers used mandatory gun purchase laws of the past as a JUSTIFICATION for this law.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/101624252
TheWraith
(24,331 posts)Your entire point boils down to the assertion that the government doesn't have the right to make you do something, even if they're not actually making you do it.
Zalatix
(8,994 posts)is a libertarian thing?
Let me get this straight. Opposing the long-standing agenda of a right wing think tank, opposing the nationwide implementation of a law first passed by a Republican Governor, is a libertarian thing?
Espousing the same position that President Barack Obama espoused during his 2008 campaign, using arguments that he used to destroy Hillary Clinton's campaign, is a libertarian thing?
Was then-Presidential candidate Obama a LIBERTARIAN when he said this?
http://cnsnews.com/news/article/obama-degeneres-why-he-opposed-individual-mandate-forcing-uninsured-buy-insurance
Seriously?
TheWraith
(24,331 posts)The attempt to brand healthcare reform as supposedly being conservative in nature is hysterical if only for the fact that only the most willfully ignorant people would believe it. Guess what: Canada has mandated insurance too. So does the UK. Every country which has single-payer does, and it's a mandate you can't opt out of for $100 a year that they can't actually collect from you anyway. And yet that fact is somehow ignored when people want to rant about the evils of the mandate.
If you're going to scream "THE MANDATE IS EVIL BECAUSE IT'S A MANDATE!", and base your argument on the premise that the government can't and shouldn't require things to be done in the general public good, then yes, you're advocating a "libertarian thing."
Zalatix
(8,994 posts)Canada doesn't require you to purchase a private corporation's insurance plan. Neither does the UK.
You've torpedoed your entire argument on those mistakes alone.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)look at what the Swiss have, or Germany or the Netherlands. Believe it or not the Single Payor model is NOT the only one that has ever been adopted. While successful, it is not the only model.
Yes, Switzerland and GERMANY use a private insurance system that is HIGHLY REGULATED.
In fact, for many cultural reasons that we could try to explain to you, the US would not be a good candidate for single payer. Some states, see Vermont and California, perhaps Oregon, ARE, but not every state in the country. How you do healthcare is also cultural.
By the way, Romney's plan in Massachusetts did deliver cheaper health care
cynatnite
(31,011 posts)pinboy3niner
(53,339 posts)Ikonoklast
(23,973 posts)Unless Jolene Blaylock personally delivers my edition.
Then, well...we'll see.
Posteritatis
(18,807 posts)treestar
(82,383 posts)Then I can retire and pay for everything else without government involvement!
Only has to be a penny per person!
LAGC
(5,330 posts)Chan790
(20,176 posts)I already own a gun. I already have health-insurance too.
Pathwalker
(6,596 posts)Millions, including Democrats own guns.
taught_me_patience
(5,477 posts)Never owned a gun and probably never will.
Proles
(466 posts)The notion that the government can now force you to buy whatever it wants you to buy is ridiculous.
And I believe Switzerland forces you to bear arms, but that's another matter entirely.
Zalatix
(8,994 posts)Also, healthcare is a biological necessity - but not private healthcare insurance corporations.
CreekDog
(46,192 posts)Probably not productive to continue arguing with you when you seem to have the case mixed up with one that doesnt exist.
Zalatix
(8,994 posts)It's probably not productive to continue arguing with you don't understand what 'mandatory purchases' means.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)The Supreme court said it's constitutional to tax you if you don't make a purchase.
So make the purchase, or pay the tax. The choice is yours.
Zalatix
(8,994 posts)Wait, let me guess, you don't think the tax is a penalty?
Well, allow me to quote a right wing source* for you, which defines the tax as a PENALTY for not buying this service:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/26/5000A
(1) In general
If a taxpayer who is an applicable individual, or an applicable individual for whom the taxpayer is liable under paragraph (3), fails to meet the requirement of subsection (a) for 1 or more months, then, except as provided in subsection (e), there is hereby imposed on the taxpayer a penalty with respect to such failures in the amount determined under subsection (c).
(2) Inclusion with return
Any penalty imposed by this section with respect to any month shall be included with a taxpayers return under chapter 1 for the taxable year which includes such month.
(3) Payment of penalty
If an individual with respect to whom a penalty is imposed by this section for any month
(A) is a dependent (as defined in section 152) of another taxpayer for the other taxpayers taxable year including such month, such other taxpayer shall be liable for such penalty, or
(B) files a joint return for the taxable year including such month, such individual and the spouse of such individual shall be jointly liable for such penalty.
(c) Amount of penalty ...
* If Cornell University wasn't a right wing source before, I'm sure they will be declared one now!
jeff47
(26,549 posts)Your incoherent ranting about semantics doesn't change the SCOTUS ruling. So:
The Supreme court said it's constitutional to tax you if you don't make a purchase.
So make the purchase, or pay the tax. The choice is yours.
Zalatix
(8,994 posts)(1) In general
If a taxpayer who is an applicable individual, or an applicable individual for whom the taxpayer is liable under paragraph (3), fails to meet the requirement of subsection (a) for 1 or more months, then, except as provided in subsection (e), there is hereby imposed on the taxpayer a penalty with respect to such failures in the amount determined under subsection (c).
(2) Inclusion with return
Any penalty imposed by this section with respect to any month shall be included with a taxpayers return under chapter 1 for the taxable year which includes such month.
(3) Payment of penalty
If an individual with respect to whom a penalty is imposed by this section for any month
(A) is a dependent (as defined in section 152) of another taxpayer for the other taxpayers taxable year including such month, such other taxpayer shall be liable for such penalty, or
(B) files a joint return for the taxable year including such month, such individual and the spouse of such individual shall be jointly liable for such penalty.
(c) Amount of penalty ...
Buy the corporation's product, or pay the penalty.
The word PENALTY is listed in this excerpt of the law SEVEN times.
Do you get it yet?
jeff47
(26,549 posts)You might notice some guy named "Roberts" explaining that the "Penalty" mentioned in the law is just a tax.
I hear he has some sort of official position to decide what laws mean.
Zalatix
(8,994 posts)God wishes he was Justice Roberts.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)Time to discuss transubstantiation, since that penalty rant wasn't going like you'd hoped?
Zalatix
(8,994 posts)BlueCheese
(2,522 posts)... doesn't make any distinction between what's a necessity and what isn't. As far as I can tell, it says the government does have the right to require private behavior or face a tax.
the fact is the government _does_ require us to buy alot of stuff.
want to go hunting or fishing? you have to BUY a license.
want to drive a car? you have to buy a license..and a license plate, and car insurance.
want to add a bedroom to your crib? you have to buy a building permit.
want to put a new sign on your place of business? you have to buy a signage permit.
want to have a protest? you have to have a permit. (and good luck getting it).
I think you see my point.
the requirement to buy health insurance is no different or more intrusive than any of the above.
loyalsister
(13,390 posts)They are paying for citizen participation. Paying for a drivers license is a way of proving you are old enough to drive and connected to an insurance policy that protects you and the citizens you interact with.
Do you want your neighbor expanding your house into your back yard, other people to post signs that your business is closed?
A incentive to buy insurance coverage is a matter of personal responsibility and citizen participation. The more people are insured the lower health care costs will be. Fewer peoples bills will be picked up by the general public when an uninsured person has a catastrophic accident or illness hasn't bothered to buy insurance.
Iggy
(1,418 posts)I'm not bitching about laws requiring us to do what makes sense when you have a nation/community
of 320 million people.
I'm merely pointing out the government _does_ require us to purchase licenses, permits, etc., and the
argument from the right that the requirement to purchase health care insurance is some BIG new
intrusion by the big bad government, and this is a requirement which violates our FREEDOM-- is bullcrap.
correct, we are not free to build a doghouse, or whatever, on our neighbor's property. the right's
understanding of "freedom" is sophomoric.
progress2k12nbynd
(221 posts)I see the point you're trying to make but you're forgetting that choosing to fish and choosing to EXIST are a bit different.
MADem
(135,425 posts)Some of us don't own cars and drive on those roads, though we may occasionally take a bus that travels on them.
But we do not have the choice of withholding the portion of our taxes that pays for those roads.
I don't understand the carping about this decision--preventive care will make costs go down over time.
elleng
(130,145 posts)Not many real analogies to health care. Its an anomalous 'market.'
Control-Z
(15,681 posts)Zalatix
(8,994 posts)mac56
(17,561 posts)Zalatix
(8,994 posts)mac56
(17,561 posts)Zalatix
(8,994 posts)I'm sure you're successful at that all the time.
Have a nice day!
mac56
(17,561 posts)Zalatix
(8,994 posts)Have a nice day!
mac56
(17,561 posts)Zalatix
(8,994 posts)Response to mac56 (Reply #45)
HangOnKids This message was self-deleted by its author.
Zalatix
(8,994 posts)Have a nice day!
Response to Zalatix (Reply #143)
HangOnKids This message was self-deleted by its author.
Zalatix
(8,994 posts)Because you say I should?
Response to Zalatix (Reply #153)
HangOnKids This message was self-deleted by its author.
Tejas
(4,759 posts)Where do I join? Can I post stats about Zal too? Are there Zal t-shirts available? As fans of Zal, we don't have to post anything constructive do we? That won't make us STALKERS will it? How about trolling, it's not considered trolling Zal is it?
Zalatix
(8,994 posts)Surest sign that you're losing not only the argument but a few other things, too.
Tejas
(4,759 posts)in their corner, don't let them get you down. RW trolls also love to control people with limits, limits on things such as speech or number of weapons one can possess...Brady.Inc or VPC ring a bell? Republican staff for Reagan that just won't fade away, at least not as long as they are in a position to keep trying to run people's lives. Again, don't let the RW trolls get you down.
Zalatix
(8,994 posts)Response to Tejas (Reply #150)
HangOnKids This message was self-deleted by its author.
Zalatix
(8,994 posts)Response to Zalatix (Reply #183)
HangOnKids This message was self-deleted by its author.
Zalatix
(8,994 posts)Sea-Dog
(247 posts)thanks much for that info
fulltimer for sure
CreekDog
(46,192 posts)Right wing trolls here that last any length of time do so by concern trolling.
Zalatix
(8,994 posts)CreekDog
(46,192 posts)Methinks this wont end well.
Zalatix
(8,994 posts)I'm sure you are old enough to remember that, no?
CreekDog
(46,192 posts)We need healthier people in the pool for this to work.
treestar
(82,383 posts)Half the DU members are now right wing trolls.
LaurenG
(24,841 posts)Zalatix
(8,994 posts)If you're willing to dish it out, you ought to be willing to take it.
CreekDog
(46,192 posts)it would be one thing if all your arguments were based on fact.
it's another when you argue things that aren't even in the law, or argue from ignorance about the law.
or perhaps you know about the law, but are misconstruing it for whatever reason that motivates you.
Zalatix
(8,994 posts)This individual mandate was first proposed by the Heritage Foundation. That is an argument based on fact. You are, in fact, fighting vigorously for a concept that a right wing "think" tank first conceived of.
Next?
CreekDog
(46,192 posts)one random DUer notwithstanding.
however, when dozens of DUers are saying it, then maybe...
bongbong
(5,436 posts)I find a lot of the gun-religionists post an awful lot...the pay is good!
Edited to add: Now it seems Z. has "employees". What a super duper multi-tasker! He has a "business" to run and yet he has hours to post on DU! What a man!
Son of Gob
(1,502 posts)Zalatix
(8,994 posts)Last edited Fri Jun 29, 2012, 03:47 AM - Edit history (1)
Weak. Just plain weak.
I see posts on various chatboards about how "busy I am running my business & taking care of my employees". They are invariably from a poster who posts dozens a day, day after day. And they are INVARIABLY repigs. Sorry, "Mr. Mutli-tasker"!
Zalatix
(8,994 posts)You have no argument that supports "you can't be posting and running a business, too".
I can run a business AND POST A LOT, TOO.
Yes, I know, that blows your mind.
Control-Z
(15,681 posts)treestar
(82,383 posts)Medical care is one thing that cannot be outsourced.
Can't take someone's blood pressure from China, or draw their blood. Probably can't sell consults with Indian doctors over Skype.
Zalatix
(8,994 posts)MEDICAL TOURISM...
You tried to be witty, I'll hand you that. Pity that you failed.
treestar
(82,383 posts)So US nurses, pharmacists, benefit and there is no way to move their jobs offshore. Medical - person has to be here.
Zalatix
(8,994 posts)Theoretically, some people will be able to afford health insurance now. Health care itself will not change in price.
For instance, an organ transplant that costs $250,000 today will cost $250,000 in 5 years (or more, given inflation). The ACA law will have no effect on the number of people who go outside the country for cheaper transplants.
Nurses won't benefit from this because there's still very few openings every year for nursing programs. Or did the ACA mandate more openings for nurses? If there are more people seeking care because of the ACA, this may actually go badly for nurses, because their workload will go up. In theory. God willing, reality won't turn out that way.
treestar
(82,383 posts)And graduate. New nursing schools may open up. And nursing isn't all - there are shorter programs for technicians of all kinds - the kind of thing that is hands on and has to happen here.
Zalatix
(8,994 posts)randome
(34,845 posts)I could understand it if you had some new insight to make. But you just want to see everything in the worst possible light.
Not me. This is a win for Obama and a loss for Republicans. It's a win for all the newly covered citizens. It's a win for those who can't be dropped because of pre-existing conditions.
This is a victory. Maybe not the Utopian victory you insist on, but a victory nonetheless.
Zalatix
(8,994 posts)Just like you have a right to express yours.
progressivebydesign
(19,458 posts)treestar
(82,383 posts)1 - you don't have health insurance and
2 - can afford it if you did want it and
3 - have enough $$ to pay any medical bills in cash
Zalatix
(8,994 posts)Because who besides some pinko bleeding heart idiot would care if other fellow Americans are going to be hurt by this law?
Going by your posting history I guess you believe we should only care about others if "others" aren't fellow Americans, but rather, people in China or India. You spend a lot of time caring about them - at the expense of your fellow Americans.
treestar
(82,383 posts)just the people I mentioned who have the $$$$ to pay medical bills outright. Your posting history if honest suggests you are not one of those.
I would like Chinese and Indian people to have healthcare too. Why is that inconsistent? They can't have health care unless Americans don't? Chinese should have a good system as a socialist nation but I fear they don't. Indian people hardly have insurance at all, as most are still poor and don't have access to health care unless they can pay $$ for it.
Zalatix
(8,994 posts)I pay for my medical insurance and my workers' insurance, too. They won't lose a wink over the ACA's mandatory provision. They wouldn't have lost a wink if the ACA was shot down.
However, just as I care about America's working class, I also care about people like this who are going to get hit hard by this mandatory purchase law.
No, my skin isn't in the game. But it could have been. I owe it to my country to give a damn about people who are going to suffer because of what the corporate state inflicts upon them.
treestar
(82,383 posts)by the government's contribution?
Why are you paying for medical insurance when that is so evil?
Zalatix
(8,994 posts)1) I pay for medical insurance because it's the best way to take care of my employees, rather than self-insuring. I'd much rather pay taxes to support Medicare For All.
2) I am against private corporation health insurance, even though I have to choose that over self-insuring. I would rather see those corporations be abolished in favor of Medicare For All.
Neither I nor my employees qualify for any kind of Medicare/Medicaid because of our incomes. I don't pay them peanuts. Because of their income, if I didn't provide insurance, this would be a big fat setback for everyone.
This is like asking me "why don't you drive an electric SUV?" when there are none on the market. (The as of yet un-released Tesla RAV4-EV notwithstanding.)
CreekDog
(46,192 posts)stop trying to get in the way of reforms that will make the current system fairer until we can get something better.
Zalatix
(8,994 posts)If you make $30,000 a year you have to pay for insurance or suffer a hit on your taxes. Your cost of living just went up. Just for living. ESPECIALLY if your boss doesn't pay for health insurance - which is increasingly the case now.
You're going to be facing a revolution from those people. I hope you have a good powerful screaming voice, you're gonna need it.
CreekDog
(46,192 posts)If you can afford it, the law guarantees group/community rates and coverage of preexisting conditions.
And the subsidies are worth discussing.
Dont stand in the way of people who want to buy insurance and dont lie to make your case.
Sincerely,
A single payer advocate who isnt amused
Zalatix
(8,994 posts)People who make money above the poverty line are going to get bit in the ass by this and I will come back to say I told you so.
LaurenG
(24,841 posts)Just because you are shortsighted and have no one in your life who is struggling with chronic health issues only makes your OPINION look more selfish the longer you keep saying it.
Democrats do NOT need self-centered people speaking for them we need advocates. When will you understand that there are millions of "others" to your one opinion who are in desperate need of healthcare? And when will you get that people without health insurance DIE. Seriously what is wrong with you?
How can you call yourself a democrat when you don't have the compassion to fight for those who are not in a position to fight for themselves? I wish you were more self aware it might help you to be more aware of the struggles of others.
Zalatix
(8,994 posts)First of all, since you are under the ridiculous and unfounded assumption that I oppose the ACA, let me make this clear to you: I never once said THE ENTIRE ACA should be struck down. Are we clear on that? That pretty much invalidates your whole post.
I oppose the individual MANDATE, and that is it.
Let me explain to you exactly how this mandate is going to bite us all on the ass.
If you are a middle class worker without insurance, you are looking at either paying for an insurance plan, or paying a tax penalty for not doing so. The tax penalty is almost always cheaper than an insurance policy. I'm sure you can do the math on that - it means many will be tempted not to get insurance, because it means less of a hit on their finances. THIS IS LEGAL, according to the individual mandate.
Not angry yet? Well then how about the fact that this same math applies to EMPLOYERS. An employer can choose to pay for a still outrageously expensive group plan for their employees, OR refuse to, and pay a tax penalty which is cheaper than the group plan! That is the option that the Individual Mandate has presented to employers. What do you think many employers will do? They'll save money by paying the fine.
Now, I think you need to stop and ask your doctor for some blood pressure medicine because this next fact is going to blow your temper through the roof, if you are a rational person. Do this and come back later.
As we speak, corporations that DO have health care plans for their employees, are actively considering dropping them. In fact, they have tried to do so in the past. Want examples? How about AT&T and Verizon for starters? Oh that's not all. [Consultants out there are advising corporations to DROP their coverage and pay the tax penalty instead, which means they would save money.
Southwest can actually save $300 MILLION by dropping, yes, DROPPING their employees' health care coverage and telling them "you're on your own, fools". You can thank the Individual Mandate for this.
Do you get it yet?
LaurenG
(24,841 posts)OK so you are in favor of arguing against it and fear mongering instead. My employer is not saying any of the things you are relating. We'll see how this all plays out, in the meantime wouldn't you feel more comfortable with the selfish money grubbing tea baggers?
Zalatix
(8,994 posts)Your employer isn't saying that, but apparently Obama had to bow to 30 major corporations who are. You saying they're imaginary? Well, I kinda wish Southwest was imaginary.
People don't need private corporation health insurance that runs 20% overhead, all of it being profit margins. They need Medicare for All, which runs on 3% overhead.
Do you know what the law of large numbers is, when it applies to insurance? If you do, you understand why Medicare for All is more efficient than all these exchanges and private insurance plans. You also, I hope, know that Medicare for All is in fact insurance, although a much better type, and far more accountable to the people than, say, Cigna.
And obviously you don't know what Tea baggers are if you think I, who prefer Medicare for All, should be comfortable around them. Or maybe you hang around them and are just trolling me?
LaurenG
(24,841 posts)and what you just posted tells me you are either very young or very naive or both. I would LOVE Medicare for all, get us all insured equally. At this point in time we barely made the affordable health care act legal. This is how it works in the real world and it will be a great start. I have a disabled sister who isn't collecting disability an unemployed niece and a son and his wife without any health insurance. All of us would be thrilled for the opportunity to buy them health insurance because at this point I pay when they can't.
Zalatix
(8,994 posts)What I just posted was 100% correct. It was backed up by cites.
What do you have? You are either ignorant or trolling. Which is it?
LaurenG
(24,841 posts)What you posted is opinion and until you give me stats by a democratic scholar I'm not buying anything you're selling.
treestar
(82,383 posts)Cut back on what you spend on clothes or gadgets. And be covered by health insurance. And get whatever tax credits you get from that, so your lifestyle doesn't take such a big hit. The idea is this product is essential. In single payer there will be a tax, too. It may not even be that much less - there will still be government bureaucrats if not insurance company executives.
People have crisis when they have medical bills because they chose other things to buy. Think of it as like buying roads and police departments - it's why we pay taxes. Rabid hatred of a business form ("insurance company" is all very well but they aren't going away until there is a Congress that votes in single payer.
treestar
(82,383 posts)TroglodyteScholar
(5,477 posts)...then you got nothing.
Zalatix
(8,994 posts)In fact those ancient laws have been referred to on the DU to justify this law.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/101624252
TroglodyteScholar
(5,477 posts)Why don't we talk about broccoli, too, while we're at it?
Zalatix
(8,994 posts)It's about the Government mandating that you purchase something just because you are still breathing.
TroglodyteScholar
(5,477 posts)'Nuff said.
Zalatix
(8,994 posts)Have a nice day!
TroglodyteScholar
(5,477 posts)Must be hard being a business owner who has enough spare time to spew (R) talking points on (D) message boards all day.
Maybe you can vote for her in 2016.
Zalatix
(8,994 posts)You do know what the Heritage Foundation is, right?
liberal N proud
(60,302 posts)In the right to bear arms debate, pro-gun Americans point to Switzerland, where almost every adult male is legally required to possess a gun. One of the few nations with a higher per capita rate of gun ownership than the United States, Switzerland has virtually no gun crime. Therefore, argue the pro-gunners, America doesn't need gun control.
http://www.google.com/#hl=en&gs_nf=1&cp=11&gs_id=10&xhr=t&q=Swiss+gun+ownership&pf=p&sclient=psy-ab&oq=Swiss+gun+o&gs_l=&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.,cf.osb&fp=3ddc6ee7f452a242&biw=1280&bih=889
jpak
(41,742 posts)yup
Heading off to the GOP convention?
Bluerthanblue
(13,669 posts)a portion of every penny we spend goes to our defense budget. And a portion goes to a police dept.
We have universal military protection, we have universal police protection.
Just because you aren't holding the weapon, doesn't mean you aren't purchasing it.
Any more than purchasing health care would require that you avail yourself of it.
Spot on. Bookmarked.
Swede
(33,143 posts)Good one.
Zalatix
(8,994 posts)Swede
(33,143 posts)Zalatix
(8,994 posts)Swede
(33,143 posts)Zalatix
(8,994 posts)Mandatory gun purchase laws already existed in the United States - in the 18th century.
In fact, DUers used the existence of that old law TO JUSTIFY THIS LAW.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/101624252
I guess these folks are "right wingers", too, right?
Swede
(33,143 posts)nt
Zalatix
(8,994 posts)And history backs me up. What do you have to back up your point?
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)No?
Zalatix
(8,994 posts)obamanut2012
(25,911 posts)Get it right!
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)How exactly is buying health care for seamen include buying guns? For god sakes, gun CONTROL laws were all the rage in the real OLD WEST.
obamanut2012
(25,911 posts)About how The Wild West was actually not very wild, except for drinking and "whoring," and guns were not even allowed in most towns. The amount of murders via shooting were very low, unless the shooting was done by Johnny Law.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)and it's portrayal of Dodge City, for example, one of the cities with the most stringent gun control laws to be exact.
obamanut2012
(25,911 posts)That's the main example I used!
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)Zalatix
(8,994 posts)I am protesting the idea that we can be forced by law to purchase a private corporation's goods or services just for breathing.
I used the example of guns.
People here keep saying that example is outrageous.
Yet that example actually happened in American history.
I'm not sure where anyone can find the factual error in my statement here.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)Is NOT the Federal government. They passed mandates to fund health care for sailors though.
That's ok
Zalatix
(8,994 posts)Congress sounds like the Federal Government to me. Am I wrong?
That statute looks like Congress required men to purchase firearms. Am I wrong?
Looks to me like mandatory purchases have been forced upon American citizens before, which means my hypothetical OP is actually a fact of history.
Mandatory purchases of a corporation's goods or services is a bad thing. Except for the corporation, of course. I would much rather there been a single payer plan for sailors, or all citizens.
You do realize that mandatory purchases of health insurance, in its modern form, was revived by the Heritage Foundation, right?
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)Not stupid. I also know there is precedent...sailors once again. There is more precedent, social security and Medicare are also treated as taxes.
You may not like this, and lord knows I'd prefer single payor. How do you think that be paid? Faerie dust?
And this is able men who were part of the militia. This is not every able man. do you even understand why? Let me tell you why, we were a few decades from Springfield Arms. The militia did not have guns to isse to the militia, modern day Guard. No, like today, not everybody was part of the militia, shocking I know.
So no, it does not mean everybody was required to own guns. Some, albeit very few, local laws require modern day head of house holds to own them, this is the precedent in case you were wondering.
But serious, no, not every man was required to own guns.
Not just fail, epic fail.
Zalatix
(8,994 posts)I don't invest in Goldman Sachs with my Social Security contributions. God knows SS would be bankrupt now if that were the case. Same with Medicare, until Part D came along. And I can't wait to see Part D go away. Counter-argument epic fail.
Single Payer wouldn't be purchasing a private corporation's product. It would be Government-run insurance. Again, your counter-argument epic failed.
As for the militia, the Government had the DRAFT back then. Which means that just for breathing, if you were a male you could be conscripted, and forced to buy a gun.
Allow me to close with this. I will fight to my dying breath against laws that force you to buy private corporation goods just because you are still breathing. After all the bullshit I've read today that has made it one of my top ten goals. The rest of the ACA is good, but mandatory purchase laws are an abomination. No corporation deserves to be GUARANTEED a profit.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)You think I am the enemy, but it's not my argument...it is in the decision and everything, take it with the SCOTUS about being a tax. Don't take it with me. The Chief Justice wrote that, and even cited case law, I know...shocking. (In fact, with the current court it is a tad shocking)
And your gun argument is a classic RW one...in fact, read it today at a few RW sites...I'm shocked actually Canto and company have not used it yet.
But here is where it is a tax, a pretty unenforceable one to boot. You can buy a policy, chose your poison, or not and pay a tax. If you are of limited means you don't even have to...and it is quite unenforceable.
But do continue with the outrage, please.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)Right wing radio, like Levine, and the rest of them, even the Conservative Cave.
They started this with Brocoli and moved to guns.
Sorry, but IT IS a right wing argument...
There are issues LEGALLY with it, such as moving it to a tax by the Court, alas that particular proviso was WRITTEN in the Tax Committee, like oh I don't know, SOCIAL SECURITY AND MEDICARE. Social policy, when it involves money, usually that is written down at the TAX COMMITTEE.
I know way too much inside baseball.
As to getting forced to buy things from private corporations, you already are...and not just for cars and houses. But I know this will not go anywhere... facts are like don't matter. But insurance for your car, or your home, are the MOST OBVIOUS onces.
Some of us even can see the BRIGHT side of this and HOW it has already has helped people. SOme of us even understand that in this country the Social Security Act of 1935 has nothing to do with the act in place today. We call this incremental legislation. Please do introduce to me the House or Senate that would pass single payer, medicare for all, right now? (Given that is my preferred model, but I prefer to live in the real world)
And yes, I am currently paying for the uninsured, every time time I go see the doctor. The fact that the number of insured in the US will go down... that alone will help with cost. After all, if I treat a person's diabetes on a regular basis, it is better for them and society.
But seriously, your beef is with the SCOTUS.
Zalatix
(8,994 posts)and made law in Massachusetts by Mitt Romney. But you're saying it's a right wing argument to oppose the individual mandate which was originally brought up by right wingers and first made into a statewide law by a Republican.
The "forced purchase of handguns" is a right wing meme but yet it is also a historical fact. Which you shouldn't bring up because now it's a right wing meme.
So now right wingers hold the exclusive right to bring up past history and opposing ideas that were birthed by right wingers is right wing behavior.
[img][/img]
Holy paradox, Batman!!!
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)In the 1890s...your point?
American politics is like that.
In the current political reality you could not pass Medicare for all. So are you going to tell people with Pre existing conditions, who are otherwise uninsurable, to go ahead and die in the name of political purity?
Go suck an egg and die, that's what you're telling them. How about the millions that will not lose it in the middle of treatment? Go suck an egg and die, in the name of purity.
Oh what about the thousands daily who refuse an ambulance because they have no insurance? Go suck an egg and die in the name of purity.
Those of us who understand the arc of history get it...this is a first step. A first step that was first attempted by TR in 1912. Chew on that, I am not willing to suck an egg and die to please this political orthodoxy.
Zalatix
(8,994 posts)I support 99.99% of the law. It's that one festering boil on its ass that I don't support. I would like to have seen the individual mandate struck down, but not the whole ACA.
Are you thinking that I want any part of the ACA struck down besides the forced private corporation insurance purchase provision? I know people have said others want the whole ACA taken out, but that ain't me.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)Whatever...
Have a good day...it wasn't, it won't...
I expect it to change over decades though.
NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)Arkana
(24,347 posts)You're using a false analogy, just like the Freepers. Bravo.
Health care is a unique industry.
Zalatix
(8,994 posts)Arkana
(24,347 posts)The vast majority of Americans in this country are going to find themselves in a doctor's office or emergency room at one time in their lives.
I could go my whole life without shooting a gun, but health insurance is a necessity--even if I'm perfectly healthy.
slackmaster
(60,567 posts)People who really want guns would buy them. People who object to owning a gun could opt to pay the tax instead.
No problem.
DainBramaged
(39,191 posts)Generic Brad
(14,270 posts)That should be .....just about.....never.
GarroHorus
(1,055 posts)It was for militias.
leftyohiolib
(5,917 posts)hughee99
(16,113 posts)how about requiring you contribute to a retirement account managed by a private investment bank (like Goldman Sachs, for example).
NickB79
(19,113 posts)Kennesaw's law was a response to Morton Grove, Illinois, which had passed a gun ban earlier that year as a step to reduce crime.
But it also was an affirmation of what gun advocates say is a blanket U.S. constitutional right, under the Second Amendment, for citizens to keep and bear arms. Gun opponents challenge that right and say the language in the Constitution is open to interpretation.
The Kennesaw law has endured as the town's population has swelled to about 30,000 from 5,000 in 1982.
What was your point again?
Zalatix
(8,994 posts)Go Vols
(5,902 posts)Kennesaw Historical Society president Robert Jones said following the law's passage, the crime rate dropped 89 percent in the city, compared to the modest 10 percent drop statewide.
"It did drop after it was passed," he said. "After it initially dropped, it has stayed at the same low level for the past 16 years."
Mayor Leonard Church was not in office when the law was passed, but he said he is a staunch supporter of it.
"You can't argue with the fact that Kennesaw has the lowest crime rate of any city our size in the country," said Church, who owns a denture-making company in Kennesaw.
Zalatix
(8,994 posts)I think not.
Go Vols
(5,902 posts)When I lived there,guns were seldom the topic of discussion.
Zalatix
(8,994 posts)where they were forced to buy one.
I oppose the very existence of health insurance corporations. Do the math on that.
spin
(17,493 posts)
Experts dont think the Kennesaw ordinance, which has never actually been enforced, did much to change gun ownership rates among Kennesaw residents. And, given that Greenleafs mayor has estimated that 80 percent of the towns residents already own guns, the new ordinance cant make all that much of a difference. But criminals are likely to suspect that towns with laws like these on the books will be unsympathetic to malefactors in general, and to conclude that they will do better elsewhere.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/16/opinion/16reynolds.html
If I was a criminal who specialized in home invasions or street muggings I would move to Chicago, New York City or Washington D.C. My work environment in those cities would be much safer. If I didn't want to move, I would be damn sure that the house I wished to break into was unoccupied and would avoid attacking citizens as they might be armed.
Unfortunately many criminals are not very intelligent. Consequently even areas that have a high rate of gun ownership and allow concealed carry still experience high crime rates.
I could point out that the violent crime rate in the United States has fallen to levels last seen in the last sixties and also that gun sales have skyrocketed in recent years and laws that allow concealed carry have swept across our nation. However I refuse to claim that more guns equals less crime as there are far too many factors in the crime equation to come to that conclusion. It is however possible to conclude that more guns and concealed carry has not caused the violent crime rate to increase dramatically.
Zalatix
(8,994 posts)I'm not sure if they're right, but if that's true, it kind of makes no sense to have that law... except to scare people.
spin
(17,493 posts)
Enforcing the Individual Mandate
Posted on January 22, 2010
Q: How does health care legislation propose to enforce the individual mandate?
A: The Internal Revenue Service would verify whether individuals meet the requirement to have health insurance, and collect a tax if they dont.
***snip***
It would be up to the IRS to verify that individuals are complying with the health insurance mandate, and to collect the tax penalty from them if they arent. Both the House and Senate bills contain sections that would amend the Internal Revenue Code and require either health insurance companies or employers to provide individuals with documents containing the specifics of their insurance coverage (e.g., name(s) on the insurance policy, period of insurance coverage, etc.). Individuals would then submit that information with their federal tax returns as proof of coverage. The IRS would be responsible for verifying that health insurance is acceptable.
Some believe that the health care bills put too much on the IRS plate. Republican Sens. Chuck Grassley of Iowa and John Cornyn of Texas issued a press release in December questioning whether the IRS, on top of its current responsibilities, will be able to handle its newly proposed ones, which include collecting an assortment of fees that employers and companies would have to pay under the legislation, distributing federal subsidies to small businesses and low-income individuals, and enforcing the insurance mandate.
The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimated that the IRS, under the House and Senate bills, may need an additional $5 billion to $10 billion in funding over 10 years to implement the bills provisions. The IRS now receives about $12 billion per year in federal money for operating expenses.
http://www.factcheck.org/2010/01/enforcing-the-individual-mandate/
Since I didn't known the answer I Googled it. I find it interesting that while the article is dated January 22, 2010 it mentioned that the penalty would be a tax not a fine.
Make7
(8,543 posts)... where everyone required a gun, how would the government (using a broken law enforcement system) enforce a mandate to purchase said guns?
KurtNYC
(14,549 posts)Maybe we can just celebrate today?
ecstatic
(32,566 posts)LanternWaste
(37,748 posts)What if the government told you you had to buy food?
I adore the word "if"-- it covers so many distempers.
KansDem
(28,498 posts)No WMDs, but I still had to pay a tax to kill innocent Iraqis.
Yeah, I know what you're saying...
onenote
(42,374 posts)Not every "bad" law is unconstitutional. If the repubs were to succeed in getting a majority of both the House and Senate to repeal the ACA, I wouldn't like it, but the point of today's ruling is that the opponents of the law, knowing that they are unlikely to be able to repeal it, sought to get the court to do their work for them.
cottonseed
(2,920 posts)kestrel91316
(51,666 posts)progressivebydesign
(19,458 posts)WilliamPitt
(58,179 posts)HockeyMom
(14,337 posts)Same with health care. When I had employee insurance and had to pay for it, I never USED it. The way I think of it is that if my money will help somebody else who WANTS to use health care, so be it.
Nobody can force me to go to a doctor, or use a gun.
Auggie
(31,061 posts)tabatha
(18,795 posts)There is nothing more personal about that. Notiing else comes close.
Zalatix
(8,994 posts)We would be better off if these corporations never existed.
progressivebydesign
(19,458 posts)Because your railing agains the law, because insurance companies shouldn't be in business, is so disjointed.
It's what we have to work with. They're not going anywhere.. what we also have is millions of people who have been shut out of the insurance market, which is making them sick.. and making the rest of us poorer as the costs are passed on to the taxpayers and the insured. I would much rather support those folks getting preventive care, than pay for them to end up near death at the ER.
So why not start a thread of "Insurance corporations suck!!" or something like that..
I am forced to pay for car insurance... and home insurance.. or I cannot get to work, or buy a home.
Zalatix
(8,994 posts)simply because I am breathing.
If I don't own a home and I don't drive, I don't need to buy homeowner's or auto insurance.
TroglodyteScholar
(5,477 posts)This is absolutely unprecedented because government has never before at the federal level forced an American to purchase a product or service just because that individual breathes.
-Michele Bachmann, ultra rightwing nutjob
Zalatix
(8,994 posts)It was first proposed by the HERITAGE FOUNDATION.
treestar
(82,383 posts)A single payer system would have to do that somehow, too. Healthy people need to pay in, because some day they could get sick. None of us knows when that might happen and how bad it might be. The idea young people can afford to stay uninsured - and then not get insurance until they get sick (a pre-existing condition) is silly.
Silly, silly, silly, these people are.
Bluerthanblue
(13,669 posts)fat on military contracts?
So much of our tax money and portions of every dollar spent in this country ends up going to corporations which are part of the USMIC.
The claim that it is for the saftey and freedom of every citizen is simply accepted and defended by so many mis-guided people.
We'd be better off if many corporations didn't exist.
Profiting off of suffering, dying and killing is obscene imo.
MichiganVote
(21,086 posts)Bluerthanblue
(13,669 posts)nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)Like all of the FBI, Secret Service, the Coast Guard...I should stop now.
dkf
(37,305 posts)backscatter712
(26,355 posts)There are a couple towns that still require it.
But during the early days of the U.S., governments routinely required men of militia age to own a musket.
immoderate
(20,885 posts)My friend sent me this in an email:
I am moving to Atlanta in a little over a month, and one of the cities we are looking at is Kennesaw. Just found out they have this law:(a) In order to provide for the emergency management of the city, and further in order to provide for and protect the safety, security and general welfare of the city and its inhabitants, every head of household residing in the city limits is required to maintain a firearm, together with ammunition therefore.
So there ya go.
--imm
progressivebydesign
(19,458 posts)not really getting your hyperbolic post here.
Zalatix
(8,994 posts)I guess you don't remember that some DUers actually used mandatory gun ownership laws as a JUSTIFICATION for mandatory health insurance. Allow me to remind you: http://www.democraticunderground.com/101624252
Also, if I don't drive, I don't need to buy auto insurance. Big difference.
obamanut2012
(25,911 posts)And some gratis Hornadays.
mzmolly
(50,957 posts)is absurd?
Zalatix
(8,994 posts)mzmolly
(50,957 posts)However, from what I can tell, some made the argument that the founding fathers (who wrote the constitution) supported various mandates in the past. Thus the argument that HCR is unconstitutional, is silly.
Zalatix
(8,994 posts)and yet when I bring it up now, it's dismissed as absurd. Yet it was hailed as a justification before.
WTF.
mzmolly
(50,957 posts)It was presented as radical example of the constitutional authority to "mandate" XYZ.
treestar
(82,383 posts)In 1787, everyone was supposed to be able to be called up for the militia, and bring your own gun.
Zalatix
(8,994 posts)NOT.
frazzled
(18,402 posts)obamanut2012
(25,911 posts)And in an age when most people had to own a gun for survival.
treestar
(82,383 posts)But Zalatix thought it was some new thing.
Beaverhausen
(24,467 posts)really- who would decide Oh,I'll just take my chances and go the emergency room if I'm sick?
Taverner
(55,476 posts)Only, they didn't make you buy one, they gave you one
And if they hadn't, the Republic would have fallen much faster
TBF
(31,921 posts)how much did you pay in taxes last year? We make quite a little bit, and our tax bill is actually pretty high (because we are part of middle class america and not in the upper echelons of the 1% where you write off your dressage lessons and so forth). And do you know what the government spent my tax money on?
A full quarter of the money goes to guns - the military. I'd rather spend my money on keeping people alive. YMMV.
http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/united_states_total_spending_pie_chart
Bluerthanblue
(13,669 posts)thank you for this.
gateley
(62,683 posts)Zalatix
(8,994 posts)You will come to regret the Government being given the power to mandate that you have to purchase something - not because you drive a car, or because you own a home, but just because you are alive.
TBF
(31,921 posts)and while we're on the subject I'm tired of folks talking about mandating my uterus.
Zalatix
(8,994 posts)Edited to add: and fuck the GOP for waging their war on women.
TBF
(31,921 posts)public schools
roads
bridges
weapons
social security
fire departments
police departments
Maybe we don't actually do the purchasing, but try to get out of paying your taxes and see how far that gets you. I personally want universal health care - I want it line item in the budget next to the Pentagon spending so we can compare straight up how much we are spending on keeping people alive vs. killing them. We are at least going in the right direction with this ruling - millions of kids will have coverage.
Which side are you on?
Zalatix
(8,994 posts)I don't pay a private corporation for public schools, roads, bridges, social security, fire departments, or the police. None of these are corporate welfare giveaways like mandatory health insurance. As for weapons, I would love to see private military contractors abolished.
I am on the side of supporting the social safety net through taxes, not giant corporate welfare giveaways. Medicare For All.
TBF
(31,921 posts)who do you think run the prisons? private corporations.
I am not for that either - but when it is a question of doing a compromise at this time to cover millions of kids - I'm in.
Do we keep fighting for universal health care? You bet I will - but I will not knock something that helps so many people right now.
Zalatix
(8,994 posts)As for helping people, I can show you at least one person who realizes that this law is going to hurt them. Someone who makes under $20,000 a year but will have to shell out some extra cash because of this (and I can't imagine that they have anything left over for living expenses with those kind of wages):
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=870040
TBF
(31,921 posts)There are tax credits to help folks who are lower income. At that income level you get most of that back at the end of the year (which I remember from the years when I wasn't at the income level I'm at now).
It is not ideal, it is not what I prefer, but in a civilized society we pool our resources to make things better for all.
Bluerthanblue
(13,669 posts)when your tax dollars are spent for public schools, roads, bridges, ss, fire depts. and police.
Don't be a fool. How much does it cost to produce a textbook? How much do most schools have to pay for that textbook???
Your tax dollars pay the corporations which profit by insuring public school teachers, public employees, and public workers.
Your tax dollars have lined the pockets of Halliburton KBR etc.
Your tax dollars are spent for fuel to power fire-trucks, military vehicles, highway equipment, police vehicles- to heat schools, military buildings, etc.
Your analogy is flawed because we ARE required to purchase things which profit private corporations with NO "choice" in saying who gets the contract, and sometimes without any measurable benefit as to the value of this kind of forced "protection".
I don't begrudge the soldiers their pay or benefits- nor do I have any problem with public employees being paid a fair wage and receiving benefits-
Your argument that you aren't paying taxes which benefit private corporations is ludicrous.
Look again at where our tax dollars end up and ask yourself who is really profiting unfairly. It isn't the school teacher, highway worker, municipal employee, soldier. Contracts with corporations are bleeding us dry.
BlueCheese
(2,522 posts)... all that is paid for out of taxes on your income, or property, or whatever else. You pay taxes because you make money.
Now you're being told that you have to buy health insurance, or pay a tax just for being alive.
TroglodyteScholar
(5,477 posts)This is absolutely unprecedented because government has never before at the federal level forced an American to purchase a product or service just because that individual breathes.
-Michele Bachmann, ultra rightwing nutjob
Zalatix
(8,994 posts)It was first proposed by the HERITAGE FOUNDATION.
TroglodyteScholar
(5,477 posts)This is absolutely unprecedented because government has never before at the federal level forced an American to purchase a product or service just because that individual breathes.
-Michele Bachmann, ultra rightwing nutjob
Zalatix
(8,994 posts)liberal N proud
(60,302 posts)Tommy_Carcetti
(43,085 posts)What if the wind refused to blow?
What if the seas refused to wave?
What if the world refused to turn?
What if the stars would hesitate?
What if, what is isn't true?
What are you going to do?
What if, what is isn't you?
Does that mean you've got to lose?
Digging for the feel of something new
hack89
(39,171 posts)"If" is such a magical word.
KatChatter
(194 posts)and ammo too.
obamanut2012
(25,911 posts)KatChatter
(194 posts)where else are you going to get large quantities of 30MM, 40MM and 50Cal belt fed ammo?
If I can buy from current inventory I am getting toys with real stopping power.
MineralMan
(146,192 posts)I'm confused. I don't need another gun right now.
Zavulon
(5,639 posts)...obviously haven't learned that Republicans should never be underestimated. I can see it now: "It is in the nation's interests to defray law enforcement costs in order for a safer, more secure America for everyone." They'll then wheel out a long series of "More Guns, Less Crime" statistics to support their idea.
I'm a gun owner myself, I'm actually quite pro-gun, but even I know that guns aren't for everyone.
The door has been opened, though. It's only a matter of time before Republicans put forth some idea that is currently being roundly mocked here. Underestimate them at your own peril.
Zalatix
(8,994 posts)Teamster Jeff
(1,598 posts)Is it impossible that they (using the GOP) would flip and go the other way by banning gun ownership for the riff raff?
Tommy_Carcetti
(43,085 posts)....I'd happily pay the tax in lieu of owning a gun.
Did I answer your question?
ieoeja
(9,748 posts)The Supreme Court could not have just paved the way for this if, in fact, it had already been done in the past.
To answer you question, I would have no problem with that whatsoever. They do it in Switzerland. Probably in Israel.
I do not now, nor ever intend to, own a firearm. But the requirement to do so strikes me as perfectly reasonable.
But then, we're not talking about a mandate here, are we? A better example would be a 1% law enforcement tax with an exemption offered to those who own an approved firearm.
Oddly enough, the gun nuts might be the most upset by this. To obtain the tax exemption you would have to prove that you owned an appropriate firearm. Which means your firearm would now be ... registered! And anything that even hints at registering firearms drives those people completely bonkers.
spanone
(135,633 posts)auburngrad82
(5,029 posts)I refused to buy a gun because I was against a bunch of right wing dipshits telling me I had to own a gun. Nothing happened to me or anyone else who didn't own a gun. It was all just a bunch of political grandstanding by a small group of idiots.
Oh, I almost forgot. Acworth, Kennesaw's neighboring town, passed a law requiring their citizens to own a fishing rod.
I bought one of those.
quaker bill
(8,223 posts)bigwillq
(72,790 posts)randome
(34,845 posts)And then shoot myself in the head.
ET Awful
(24,753 posts)I'd say that the President and congress of 1792 had a pretty clear understanding of what the founding fathers wanted (probably because they were them).
Iggy
(1,418 posts)covered... no need for the Feds to do anything....
Hippo_Tron
(25,453 posts)And if the fact that the government enacted a law in the 18th century actually increased the probability of such a law being enacted today, then there's many many laws I'd be losing sleep over before this one.
Zalatix
(8,994 posts)Hippo_Tron
(25,453 posts)The argument that it will happened again because it happened once over 200 years ago, is just a dumb argument.
Zalatix
(8,994 posts)Deb
(3,742 posts)oh, yeah...
Honeycombe8
(37,648 posts)damage to your property, it's none of the govt or my concern whether you can protect yourself.
However, if you expect help from us, your neighbors, or your govt, should the drug cartel show up at your door...or help paying for your coffin....or help rebuilding your house burned down by the meth gang down the street....THEN it becomes my business whether you protect yourself.
But there's a big difference between a gun and insurance coverage. Insurance ASSURES that you will get health care, even if you can't pay for it out of pocket. Having a gun does NOT ensure that you will be able to protect yourself.
So the analogy is false.
cherokeeprogressive
(24,853 posts)I suppose a case could be made that it would be good for the economy... Commerce Clause and all that.
CreekDog
(46,192 posts)at least for the sake of accuracy.
Zalatix
(8,994 posts)CreekDog
(46,192 posts)And does insulting our intelligence count?
Son of Gob
(1,502 posts)Interesting verbiage. Says a lot about you.
cherokeeprogressive
(24,853 posts)jillan
(39,451 posts)You don't need a gun.
You will need healthcare one day.
Or we could all be mandated to shoot broccoli.
Try again. Dig deep.
Zanzoobar
(894 posts)Government can only tell you what to do if it's not gun related with respect to health care other than guns. If you read the decision you'll find that it's only related to interstate commerce as it relates to a penalty disguised as a tax which is constitutional if it relates to apportionment among the various states and people, respectively. There is no way you can do that with ammo when it's a lot heavier than apportionment in the general supreme court sense of the understanding of crossing state lines with insurance and firearms. This also applies to larger bombs and terrorists, which will also protect us.
Zanzoobar
(894 posts)which the venerable John C RObnerts was in accordance with in his decision to reveal his approbative disagreement with government opinion that they might do what they wish and make me buy golf clubs when I do not golf. At least I do not like to golf when they tell me to, but I would much rather golf than pay insurance companies the benefits of my labor when I am not really in need of medical benefits. I have no problem if they tell me to golf if they only do it when I am supposed to be working, which is most of the days between 9 and 5 on the weekdays, respectively.
alittlelark
(18,886 posts)bluestateguy
(44,173 posts)Small towns mostly, but such laws are not really enforced.
DirkGently
(12,151 posts)- Everyone doesn't need broccoli (or guns) in order to live, in every single case.
- We don't feel compelled to give people who don't have broccoli (or guns) super expensive Emergency Room broccoli (or guns) to prevent them from dying in the streets
- People's lives are not being destroyed because they need broccoli (or guns) in order to live, or save the lives of their children, parents, and spouses, where even small amounts of broccoli (or guns) cost more than everything they have.
- The broccoli (and gun) industry isn't relying on the life-or-death nature of the need for their products to force people into complicated, opaque schemes whereby they pay for broccoli (or guns) but often don't actually get the broccoli (or guns) when and how they need them, because the profit motive compels a constant increase in profits, which in turn requires constantly lowering the level or quantity of "broccoli." Or "guns." While increasing the price 10 or 20 or 30% per year.
- People aren't being denied life-giving broccoli / guns because they forgot to mention they had asthma for two weeks in the eighth grade. People aren't denied live-giving broccoli or guns because they already needed broccoli or guns at some point before they lost their previous job. Bureacrats aren't being paid huge salaries to devise new ways to cheat dying people out of the guns and broccoli they need to live.
- People aren't forced to keep jobs they may hate, or forgo other opportunities, in order to ensure that they don't lose the ability to obtain broccoli or guns.
- The current, modest reform effort we are all discussing would require people who irrationally, dishonestly, do not believe they will ever need "broccoli or guns" to, IF they are not impoverished, to pay a fee of some $600. There is no coercion, nor threat of imprisonment. A whopping 2% of the population is expected to fall into this category.
Really, this is ridiculous. We live in a civilization, the basis of which is shared use of resources and cooperation for the common good. That's what civilization is. That's how it works. All the other countries not currently impoverished or in utter chaos know this. As Bill Maher so eloquently put it recently, "All the other 'big-boy' nations on Earth have universal health care (in which people are -- gasp -- technically 'forced' to participate).
Regarding health care, which is nothing like broccoli, or guns, our options are limited.
1) We can figure out the most effective way for everyone to have it, which will be expensive, and which will by its nature require both "rationing" of resources on some level, and the subsidization by the younger and healthier of the older and sicker. Kind of like the older, sicker people subsidized all the younger, healthier people by producing and raising them. We already have rationing and subsidies just like this in the "free market" system, which does the same thing, just with pools much smaller than the entire population.
2) We can rely on the bizarre, accidental employer-subsidized system that everyone hates, or something similar, in which some people have some healthcare options, some of the time, and the rest are dealt with through the spectacularly inefficient and expensive method of trying to treat them all in the emergency room, or
3) We can let anyone who hasn't stumbled into the right job at the right time, or joined the military, or gone to prison, die the streets. Which would in fact "free" people from cooperating in the society we all depend on and benefit from, but the reality of which might be less desirable than charging people a small fee for failing to support the system we know they will eventually have to rely upon anyway.
Broccoli and guns my ass.
AsahinaKimi
(20,776 posts)Nihontō, my Kantana instead?
ZenLefty
(20,924 posts)If your kesa can cut a human torso in half, I'd say sure.
AsahinaKimi
(20,776 posts)ZenLefty
(20,924 posts)... you will save the world!
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)But they dont- so health care is already a collective enterprise, after a fashion. ALL of us are already involved in it.
If "freedom" is the answer, then you have to be okay with poor people dying becuse they cant pay to get in the emergency room.
Rex
(65,616 posts)erroneously to modern times. The govt will never do that and you know it. It would be virtually impossible in modern society to uphold, unlike healthcare insurance. Your analogy is almost as bad as people scared the gummit is going to take AWAY their guns.
The chances are equal imo. And YES in the PAST (very important) there was a law...made out of necessity. Give me one credible scenario that would cause our criminal justice system to fall that far apart and maybe I will listen.
I doubt you can.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)all the time. It's called tax and spend, and Roberts explained that's all the health care insurance reform bill does -- tax and spend.
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)It'd be a nice change from the fact that - as it's currently interpreted - the second amendment only exists for people with the cash to spare.
6000eliot
(5,643 posts)I pay taxes that go towards a war machine that I want no part of. It's either that or go to jail.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)With exceptions for "persons scrupulous of bearing arms" (ie, Quakers and clergy did not have to) and an exemption for "paupers".
Also, that power is pretty clearly there under the militia clause.
baldguy
(36,649 posts)You're really failing big time in your promotion of gun worship, here.
Guns have nothing to do with safety. OTOH, health insurance does have a little something to do with health insurance.
Meg_Griffin_1
(49 posts)"What if the Government told you that for safety's sake, you must purchase a gun?"
Just one more in my collection thats all.....lol
meaculpa2011
(918 posts)for the government to mandate window gates, triple deadbolt locks and alarm systems. That would save municiplaities millions in police calls. They could even reduce their police departments while allowing remaining personnel to focus on more productive activities like parking tickets.
Zalatix
(8,994 posts)markpkessinger
(8,381 posts)The Militia Act of 1792 provides, in Article i:
kentuck
(110,950 posts)Last edited Sat Jun 30, 2012, 11:23 AM - Edit history (1)
and there would be no strings attached? Even if they ended up in the hands of gun runners and drug dealers, would that be a good law?
Isn't that what we have at present?
Johnny Rico
(1,438 posts)If I bought them from a dealer, I'd have to fill out a form 4473 for each one; if they were private sales, there'd be no paperwork whatsoever.
scheming daemons
(25,487 posts)I've seen this exact argument on conservative sites this week.
Zalatix's motives are questionable.
(Mole)
riverbendviewgal
(4,251 posts)very sad for him if this is the case, but he may have read this if he is indeed a RWr and he is feeling helpless and frustrated. .
That would mean that in addition to holding the House and Mitt Romney defeating Obama in the race for the White House, Republicans would have to take the senate and by a filibuster-proof majority. This is because for many major pieces of legislation, a simple majority vote no longer suffices for passage in the senate. According to the rules of the chamber, before a vote takes place on a bill, the senate has to vote on whether to have a vote. This is called cloture, and it requires 60 votes out of 100 (or three-fifths) to invoke. With the GOP controlling only 47 seats at the moment, Republicans would have to gain a virtually unprecedented 13 senate seats in November to secure a filibuster proof majority. Polls on these races indicate nothing of the sort will happen.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-gop/2901211/po
Sea-Dog
(247 posts)Zalatix
(8,994 posts)LaurenG
(24,841 posts)Please, tell me that you don't think an insurance company ever supported helping sick people. They are republicans why would they ever vote any other way?
riverbendviewgal
(4,251 posts)BUT I have a firearms license....big deal....so I would get a gun..
but a gun would not help me get well from a serious illness like a detached retina which happens to thousands at any moment without warning.....
Being I am up here is a Socialistic Democracy I benefit from our socialist health care. I did have a detached retina last Fall. I noticed half my sight in my left eye was going black and went to my optomistrist...I called for an appointment and his receptionist said to come in immediately. I walked in the door while the waiting room was full of patients but he saw me immediately, within 5 minutes he sent me home to pack my overnight bag to go the eye surgeon, who is a two hour drive away. I saw the eye surgeon when I arrived and within 3 hours was getting laser surgery. I didn't have to stay overnight luckily.
I saw him 2 times after that to check on my eye.. My provincial health care paid for my gas for the 3 trips in a travel grant. I have full eyesight again, in fact he said my eyesight is even better in that eye than before. and the cost of my treatment...NOTHING. It all comes out of my provincial taxes which are combined with my federal taxes...I have been averaging 21 - 25 percent taxes the last few tax filing....my income is in the upper 40k. I get a lot of bang for my taxes I think and I help others less fortunate than me. Next year my prescription drugs will cost me just 100 bucks a year, no more than that. God Bless Canada. WE ARE FREE and enjoy our lives without worrying if we can afford to see a doctor.
There is still private health insurance here for dental and eye tests (if you have an illness you don't pay for the eye test), prescription drugs, physiotherapy, semi private rooms, and hearing aids and travel health insurance (which I make sure I have when I go to the USA as all medical care is so expensive down there. I can deduct the cost of that from my income tax return.
The American right wing nuts are so crazy to fight this. We Canadians will get out our guns and fight any government official who would take away our health care the way it is now. If you wikipedia Canadian health insurance, which started in the 60s, you would see many Canadians had great fears of it too. Now we are smiling because we have it. It is not perfect but we look across the border south of us and we smile and thank the Lord we have ours.
I think the gun example is a very poor example for presenting health insurance as being forced. I like my example as to why it is good. I have to take a trip.. The gas cost me $100...If I have a friend and we split it it costs me only half...and some more friends and it cost me less. I think getting $ from those who don't pay but can afford it is very wise thing for the government to do on the income tax file. The government makes people get car insurance. The banks make people get house insurance for their mortgages.
JNelson6563
(28,151 posts)dangerous individuals I could find. Then I would get busy on the uniformed, over-opinionated ones.
But I wouldn't shoot to kill. Nah, I'd only injure 'em so they can realize how fortunate they are to have health care.
Julie