OT The Same Logic as the Health Insurance Bill
Gnork
A modest proposal
By Al Horne
Tuesday, November 17, 2009
With Congress tied up over health reform -- legislation whose initial,
much-discussed goal was to extend health insurance to as many as 47
million uninsured Americans -- this may be as good a time as any to
propose another, less divisive reform.
· What D.C. Needs Least: More Guns on the Streets
· The State of Guns
The FBI and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms estimated in
2008 that more than 250 million guns were owned by U.S. citizens.
Since President Obama's election last November, newspapers and
electronic media have reported a sharp increase in U.S. gun sales,
spurred by rumors that the new administration had secret plans to
block gun sales to law-abiding Americans. Normally, about 4.5 million
guns are sold in the United States each year, so this surge in sales
means that Americans own roughly 260 million guns, in a population of
nearly 309 million.
Surveys indicate that gun ownership is not spread evenly across U.S.
households. In fact, chances are that a substantial proportion of U.S.
gun owners have more than one weapon, so it's quite possible that
fewer than 200 million Americans own those 260 million guns. That
means there may be more than 100 million citizens left unprotected
against their gun-owning fellow citizens.
Surely everyone can agree that this is an outrage. Moreover, it is an
outrage that Congress can easily fix, without months of committee
meetings, town halls or tea parties. All that is required is a
bipartisan, pro-constitutional bill to extend the Second Amendment's
protection of gun ownership to all Americans, whether they like it or
not.
Under such legislation -- let's call it the Gun Insurance Act of 2009
-- every American would be required to buy some kind of gun. Those who
cannot afford even the simplest weapon -- say, those whose 2009 annual
income is less than twice the federal poverty level -- could be issued
$500 vouchers that would be valid only at gun shops or gun shows, and
would have to be used before the 2010 Census. (Just think: What a
stimulus to private enterprise all these gun sales would provide, and
how many new gun-selling jobs would be created!)
How would the law be enforced? Census takers could verify that
everyone they count has a weapon in working condition, and those
census takers who survive could report all non-complying Americans to
the FBI so it could notify local police departments, which would issue
citations for whatever fines Congress chooses to impose. (Note that
this proposed legislation would not require creating any new
bureaucracy, public option or death panels.) Of course, illegal
immigrants would not receive vouchers, would not be required to buy
guns and would not be counted in the Census.
So there it is: a modest proposal even Max Baucus and Chuck Grassley
can agree on. If we're willing to require people to buy health
insurance, why not require them to buy guns? Sure, maybe the
Congressional Budget Office could overestimate its cost, and some
wimpy liberals could file a court challenge, but the Supreme Court
would slap it down on a clear 5-to-4 vote. Nancy Pelosi and Harry
Reid, here's one issue where you can count on at least a couple of
Republican votes.
The writer, a former Post reporter and editor, lives in Alexandria.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dano
"Gnork" <gn...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:779a6baf-40ce-4f3e...@g10g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
A modest proposal
By Al Horne
Tuesday, November 17, 2009
� The State of Guns
Yeah. That's EXACTLY right. The access to health insurance...to healthcare
more importantly...is a perfect analogy to access to firearms. Brilliant!
Well this guy may actually be nuttier than you!
O'Neil's Faggy Prostate - Libs are stupid. :)
> --------------
> Yeah. That's EXACTLY right. The access to health insurance...to healthcare
> more importantly...is a perfect analogy to access to firearms. Brilliant!
You a-scared of guns, Dano?
*snicker*
PETER SHORTS
where's the link? this looks interesting, but i'd like to read it in
its original context, not your cut and paste.
Gnork
The so-called health care bill will destroy freedom of choice, set
back research and innovation, and in the end reduce the quality of
care. The gun bill, which probably everybody but you realizes is
facetious,
shows the intrusiveness of the health bill and the unreasonableness as
well. Actually, the gun bill would be less damaging. If it was only
that, you could at least still choose your own doctor. Also, I really
doubt if you are familiar with a book titled "More Guns, Less Crime"
by John Lott, but you may wish to look at it. Mr. Lott set out to
research gun use. He had no agenda or preconceived bias. He found that
in states where it was easier to get a permit to carry violent crime
and murder were less prevalent than in other areas where such permits
are almost impossible to get, like D.C.
Gnork
I didn't eliminate anything. It was sent to me by a friend in an e-
mail. I suggest you do some research. Good luck.
Ray O'Hara
=================================================================
what freedom of choice? you get the plan your employer offers.
those plans have a list of approved hospitals and doctors.
your choice is Hoson's choice.
a public plan will give you more options as like medicare every hospital and
doctor will accept it.
all the anti-reform talk is driven by the insurers, they fear competition.
Tristan daCunha
You make Homer Simpson the founder of Mensa, by direct comparison.
I hope your wife has a b/f cause you ain't got nothin'
goin'.....dipshit!
Gnork
No one is forced to accept or be limited by an employer's plan. There
would be no choice with Obummer's BS. The options will disappear as he
forces the independent providers to comply with over-regulation and
fees.You can buy an affinity insurance plan. You can add a
catastrophic insurance plan to it. Premiums will be low. You pay for a
good chunk of the minor stuff (usually 50% or so) and you are covered
if you are run over by a beer truck or the like. The government plan
has everything to do with socialist control of the economy by faceless
bureaucrats and czars and statisticians and nothing to do with quality
health care and individual choice. Everyone who voted for it should be
voted out of office. Many will. The doctrinaire socialism of the worst
president in US history will force him out of office after one
miserable term of incompetence, anti-Americanism, socialism,
corruption and a complete lack of concern for the real needs of the
American people.
O'Neil's Faggy Prostate - Libs are stupid. :)
> > --------------
> > Yeah. That's EXACTLY right. The access to health insurance...to healthcare
> > more importantly...is a perfect analogy to access to firearms. Brilliant!
>
> > Well this guy may actually be nuttier than you!
>
> The so-called health care bill will destroy freedom of choice, set
> back research and innovation, and in the end reduce the quality of
> care. The gun bill, which probably everybody but you realizes is
> facetious,
> shows the intrusiveness of the health bill and the unreasonableness as
> well. Actually, the gun bill would be less damaging. If it was only
> that, you could at least still choose your own doctor. Also, I really
> doubt if you are familiar with a book titled "More Guns, Less Crime"
> by John Lott, but you may wish to look at it. Mr. Lott set out to
> research gun use. He had no agenda or preconceived bias. He found that
> in states where it was easier to get a permit to carry violent crime
> and murder were less prevalent than in other areas where such permits
> are almost impossible to get, like D.C.
>
> =================================================================
>
> what freedom of choice? you get the plan your employer offers.
No, you could buy your own if you wished, too.
> those plans have a list of approved hospitals and doctors.
> your choice is Hoson's choice.
Heh.
> a public plan will give you more options as like medicare every hospital and
> doctor will accept it.
Uh-huh.
> all the anti-reform talk is driven by the insurers, they fear competition
Actually, it's driven by those who want to retain their freedom and
have seen the rationing and poor care that it leads to in nations, and
states HERE, that have adopted similar plans.
As usual, ray, you're an easy target.
McDuck
wrote:
>Also, I really
>doubt if you are familiar with a book titled "More Guns, Less Crime"
>by John Lott, but you may wish to look at it. Mr. Lott set out to
>research gun use. He had no agenda or preconceived bias. He found that
>in states where it was easier to get a permit to carry violent crime
>and murder were less prevalent than in other areas where such permits
>are almost impossible to get, like D.C.
States that have the most serious crime problems tend to want to ban
the guns used in crimes. It would be a huge surprise if the states
with lower crime rates would be the ones limiting guns the most.
Studies show that states with high tobacco taxes have lower teen
smoking. That does not mean that raising the tobacco tax in N.
Carolina will result in lower teen smoking. The states with high
cigarette taxes tend to be ones with an anti-smoking culture, and vice
versa.
Easy to get fooled by a poor use of statistics.
McDuck
wrote:
>No one is forced to accept or be limited by an employer's plan. There
>would be no choice with Obummer's BS. The options will disappear as he
>forces the independent providers to comply with over-regulation and
>fees.You can buy an affinity insurance plan. You can add a
>catastrophic insurance plan to it. Premiums will be low. You pay for a
>good chunk of the minor stuff (usually 50% or so) and you are covered
>if you are run over by a beer truck or the like. The government plan
>has everything to do with socialist control of the economy by faceless
>bureaucrats and czars and statisticians and nothing to do with quality
>health care and individual choice. Everyone who voted for it should be
>voted out of office. Many will. The doctrinaire socialism of the worst
>president in US history will force him out of office after one
>miserable term of incompetence, anti-Americanism, socialism,
>corruption and a complete lack of concern for the real needs of the
>American people.
Your conservative friends in Congress think the way to beat Obama in
1014 and the Dems in Congress in 1012 is to defeat health-care reform.
You think the opposite --- that getting health care reform enacted and
seeing it fail (your prediction) will defeat Obama. I think the
Republican in Congress have the more promising strategy.
The weakness in your plan is that if health care is enacted, many of
the lies from the opponents will be proven to be lies.
Tristan daCunha
Gotta' get rid of this jerk and his Pelosiites!
Tristan daCunha
Shows ya' how a wet brain ceases to function!
O'Neil's Faggy Prostate - Libs are stupid. :)
> The weakness in your plan is that if health care is enacted, many of
> the lies from the opponents will be proven to be lies.
No, they'll be proven true - at great expense to this country. Just
as the "death panel"-type decisions and rationing occur in other
countries with "gimmie" health care, they will come to be in this
nation as well.
The left has provided no logical explanation as to why the same things
will not happen here - that's because they will.
And that's why Obambicare why it must be stopped.
O'Neil's Faggy Prostate - Libs are stupid. :)
Cigarettes aren't guns, McSuck.
APPLES TO APPLES!!!
:D
Gnork
You are a hard core doctrinaire lefty. Nothing will stop you from
spouting the party line BS. You may say the opposite applies to me,
but I am independent and willing to consider and analyze facts. You
are not. You are an aging lefty hoping your incompetent hero will
somehow be able to put through all the terrible stuff you have wanted
for the past 40 years.The people were dumb enough to elect him, but
now many are seeing the light. Obama's popularity is sinking like a
boulder in a pond. Many democrats are becoming afraid to vote with
him. His is twisting arms and passing out promises of pork projects.
That can only work for a short time. The people are organizing,
standing up and protesting peacefully. We are also noting who voted
for what. Those following the freedom stealing socialist programs of
this pathetic regime will be targeted for defeat and their voting
records will be widely publicized. This is real democracy and it won't
fall victim to the ass kissing left wing media. Just when you thought
you had it made your time is up. Funny how that works.
Gnork
It isw interesting how "Mr. Lefty" dismisses the conclusions out of
hand. "Bad statistics" that he has neither seen nor analyzed. Bad,
because they go against his preconceived notions. I have heard John
Lott being interviewed about his book. He admitted that he was at
first surprised by the results. He checked his methods carefully. He
was not pointing towards the conclusion shown by his research. Does
that mean he has no mistakes? No, but it does mean that a certain
rancid waterfowl needs to do his research on it and cite his
statistics and explain why Lott is wrong to have creditability.
Instead we get a baseless flat out rejection. It is sort of like the
Monty Python skit where the wife comes home to find her husband in bed
with another women. While the wife is yelling at him he denies the
existence of the other woman as he nudges her to get dressed and
leave.
McDuck's factless rants leave him rather exposed.
PETER SHORTS
yeah, when will he learn that health care is guns. sheesh.
PETER SHORTS
oh, it was a research assignment. why don't you research how to post
properly?
S/B 954RR
"McDuck" <wallyDELE...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:h05cg5d38tfh1842a...@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 19 Nov 2009 16:44:18 -0800 (PST), Gnork <gn...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>>No one is forced to accept or be limited by an employer's plan. There
>>would be no choice with Obummer's BS. The options will disappear as he
>>forces the independent providers to comply with over-regulation and
>>fees.You can buy an affinity insurance plan. You can add a
>>catastrophic insurance plan to it. Premiums will be low. You pay for a
>>good chunk of the minor stuff (usually 50% or so) and you are covered
>>if you are run over by a beer truck or the like. The government plan
>>has everything to do with socialist control of the economy by faceless
>>bureaucrats and czars and statisticians and nothing to do with quality
>>health care and individual choice. Everyone who voted for it should be
>>voted out of office. Many will. The doctrinaire socialism of the worst
>>president in US history will force him out of office after one
>>miserable term of incompetence, anti-Americanism, socialism,
>>corruption and a complete lack of concern for the real needs of the
>>American people.
>
> Your conservative friends in Congress think the way to beat Obama in
> 1014 and the Dems in Congress in 1012 is to defeat health-care reform.
You sound like a Yankee fan bringing up the past. :)
O'Neil's Faggy Prostate - Libs are stupid. :)
>
> - Show quoted text -
Hey, when you get right down to it - it's all guns.
Ray O'Hara
=========================================================================
go healthcare shopping and see how much you can afford.
do you have the extra money to pay for insurance? most people don't.
it gets expensive.
Dano
All he cares about is his health insurance in Panama. Wonder how that'll
work out for him. I'll bet they have great long term care for seniors there
too. How much is malaria insurance anyway?
Gnork
If you are clever (nevermind) and put some effort into it as I have
explained, it isn't that expensive. Further if your employer wasn't
burdened by your insurance costs, you could get paid more. So if you
could buy health insurance as I have explained for say $1,200 a year
and your employer was putting out $2,800 a year previously, that is a
$1,600 difference. Get a $1,200 raise and you are even.
>
> All he cares about is his health insurance in Panama. Wonder how that'll
> work out for him. I'll bet they have great long term care for seniors there
> too. How much is malaria insurance anyway?
LOL. I admit that is funny. But they have eradicated malaria there.
FYI you can buy some basic health insurance there for as little as
$150 a year. You are fully covered if attacked by a rabid beaver. But
seriously, MOST of their doctors are US trained. My dentist there is a
grad of Temple Univ., practiced in FL for over 10 years and is board
certified. His English is at least as good as that of my last 2
dentists here, one from Peru and one from Iran. Also, I am concerned
about the USA. This government is doomed to fail, just as the Soviet
Union did, if changes are not made soon, it will collapse under the
weight of its own incompetence. More and more government employees
supported by fewer and fewer taxpayers is a prescription for disaster.
Good luck getting O'Hara to pay tax. Who would give him a job?
O'Neil's Faggy Prostate - Libs are stupid. :)
> =========================================================================
> go healthcare shopping and see how much you can afford.
> do you have the extra money to pay for insurance? most people don't.
> it gets expensive.
If you think it's expensive now, wait until it's "free."
Tristan daCunha
50 mi. from me.
I took a "layoff" and applied for Cobra to save my health ins. I was
paying $45 per wk. and was told that my Cobra Premium would go to $440
per mo. I accepted that figure.
About a week later a Human Resource person contacted me. I was told that
Ford in Michigan had an alternate plan for $725 per mo. and that was my
Cobra option.
I contacted an atty. and he said I would have to accept what Ford had on
the table, or lose coverage. This was in 2006.
To sum it up, there ain't no pie in the sky.
That's the private sector! No bargains!
Oreobama and Co. will put the beach umbrella up your collective asses
and open it. The premiums for the "new improved" health care will be a
"slush fund? and the great unwashed will be rationed and eliminated. You
heard it here first.
Keep voting Dem, jackoffs!
Canada, England, Sweden, Cuba, et al....there ya' go!
S/B 954RR
"Gnork" <gn...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:9d0d2dc9-5c5c-4a9d...@f20g2000vbl.googlegroups.com...
When I was single I had a catastrophe plan on myself. About $150 a month
due to some risky behavior on my part, when I had my son, I got him normal
coverage and had myself on catastrophe, about $350 total at that point with
my wife having her own coverage because if I included her it blew the plan
up to about $1500 due to her being of child bearing age. Fortunately she
can take part in group coverage at work dirt cheap but only for herself.
When my second son was born, all bets were off. The mother fuckers bumped
me to $1350 because there were three of us. No ala carte once there are
three. I get by but it is a bitch and I still don't support this
scoundrel's plan.
>> All he cares about is his health insurance in Panama. Wonder how that'll
>> work out for him. I'll bet they have great long term care for seniors
>> there
>> too. How much is malaria insurance anyway?
>
> LOL. I admit that is funny. But they have eradicated malaria there.
> FYI you can buy some basic health insurance there for as little as
> $150 a year. You are fully covered if attacked by a rabid beaver. But
> seriously, MOST of their doctors are US trained. My dentist there is a
> grad of Temple Univ., practiced in FL for over 10 years and is board
> certified. His English is at least as good as that of my last 2
> dentists here, one from Peru and one from Iran. Also, I am concerned
> about the USA. This government is doomed to fail, just as the Soviet
> Union did, if changes are not made soon, it will collapse under the
> weight of its own incompetence. More and more government employees
> supported by fewer and fewer taxpayers is a prescription for disaster.
> Good luck getting O'Hara to pay tax. Who would give him a job?
He is the boss at home. His house gave him a job.
S/B 954RR
"Tristan daCunha" <nomdev...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:26230-4B0...@storefull-3113.bay.webtv.net...
> I worked for a Ford dealership which was moving to a new location about
> 50 mi. from me.
> I took a "layoff" and applied for Cobra to save my health ins. I was
> paying $45 per wk. and was told that my Cobra Premium would go to $440
> per mo. I accepted that figure.
> About a week later a Human Resource person contacted me. I was told that
> Ford in Michigan had an alternate plan for $725 per mo. and that was my
> Cobra option.
> I contacted an atty. and he said I would have to accept what Ford had on
> the table, or lose coverage. This was in 2006.
> To sum it up, there ain't no pie in the sky.
> That's the private sector! No bargains!
That's messed up, I'm a former Ford (corporate) employee myself and it was
always made clear that the dealer network was a separate entity. I can't
believe they'd hold you to a corporate plan and am even more shocked that a
corporate cobra plan was that much. I hope you told them to stick it.
Unless you have a family you can do much better than that. FWIW, when I was
laid off from Ford I was single and it was 11 years ago, Cobra was $170 at
the time and you were allowed to not pay it until you had a claim, I think
there was a four month window.
Tristan daCunha
must accept what they tender you! That's their version of Cobra.
I was amazed at the "stone wall" and told them to stuff it.
This was in 2006.
All Health Ins. is pooled by group.
Your premiums are determined by an experience factor.
If your Group has a high claim rate, your premiums (and your employer's)
are high.
With Oreobama (and Gang) they only want premiums; with negligible
payouts.
It's another "force fed" tax...bunkies!
Just like the "cap and trade".
It's called "Governmental Confiscatory Prestidigitation".
Libs just never learn!
They love a benevolent dictatorship!
The Oreobamaites are the second coming, (donchya' know) and they will
save you all from your profligate lifestyles
with their superior "raison d' etre".
From Barack to youse,"Twas brillig and the slithy toves,
Did gire and gimble in the wabe"!
GET IT?? <G>