Fiery_penguin_of_doom Posts

Like Gibbous I am the granite rock of Atheism. I've moved from staunch Christian then eventually fell into pagan beliefs. Within that spectrum I moved from Wiccan to Satanic eventually disregarded all supernatural forces as unproven ramblings of the disillusion. the only thing I keep from my "theist" days are the principles of Satanism.

Assault rifles have certain details that separate it form things like the Ar-15.

Link.

I'm not as much of a gun fan as you so if you come up with contradicting evidence I'll side with you on it.

In addition, the Firearms Owners' Protection Act of 1986 halted the manufacture of assault rifles for the civilian market and currently limits legal civilian ownership to units produced and properly registered with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives before May 1986.

In a nutshell, this is bullshit.

Plus, I wanna own an AA-12 damn it! Pulling the trigger on that will give any gun nuts a "man-gasm"

I've used firearms in the past, thank you very much. A handgun vs an assault rifle is a world of difference. Especially when you take into account the rate of fire. A simple 9mm or whatever handgun you prefer just doesn't stand up compared to the assault rifles the police use. I also think that I shouldn't have to resort to the black market to acquire such weapons.




The statement is hardly false, if you'd take the time to actually understand the words rather than just read them you would have caught that. I should have equal access to ANY and ALL weapons the police use. Currently, there is a huge power gap between police, the "criminals" and the average citizen. Gangs can get automatic weapons while the police drive around with them in the back of the cruiser. This leaves the average (law abiding) person at a huge disadvantage. As criminals will keep trying to one up the police while the police try to do the same. The average person won't get access to these weapons under the current rules.

So lets, say another 9/11 happens. The acting president (for simplicity it's not Obama) declares martial law, suspends the constitution,starts house to house searches, seizing weapons, arresting people without probable cause,etc. What can the people do? Currently, nothing as anybody who had a weapon would be killed easily due to the sheer difference in firepower. Now, if the average citizen could purchase an assault rifle. The police wouldn't be able to just have their way with society. One wrong step and the people could revolt but, politicians (and police) don't like the notion that they won't have the upper hand at all points in time.

People will probably scoff at my example but, we've seen dozens and dozens of Governments turn Facist and/or commit genocide time and again. It's happened before and it WILL happen again.

I say they should only be allowed to carry what I can purchase legally. The availability of automatic weapons to the police force creates a divide between average citizen and the government forces. This gap allows the police to push the average citizen around. The average person has absolutely no fighting chance against the government due to the restrictions placed on the second amendment. In the current state there is little to nothing a person can do against the police.

The police should never have more power than the people they were created to protect.

The government option is government controlled insurance. The notion of "If you like your insurance, you can keep it" is a bold lie. The public option would suit companies more since they could dump the cost of insuring it's workers with better plans onto the "public option". This would cause people to lose, all around better coverage from the employer issued insurance policies. The economic incentives for companies to dump their workers into the government plan would be SO huge that there isn't even an analogy to compare it to.



From the horses mouth Also

Link. The CBO director himself has stated that the legislation will have "minimal savings if any"





While health insurance isn't really a tax it is a government mandated expense. Depending on, which route you want to take. Single payer or Government insurance?
Single payer system will cause taxes to increase because the government is already in the hole and adding a new load of spending to take care of everybody. To increase deficit spending without attempting to increase revenue from taxes is bad fiscal policy. Any kid in High school econ can tell you, that you can't spend your way out of debt. Taxes will go up in one way, shape or form or another. Income, Sales, inheritance, death, payroll,etc. Taxes will go up somewhere.

As for the uninsured, increased medical cost. This only accounts for hospital and care taking bills. The reason is, they can not collect on the debt owed to them by the uninsured so they pass the cost onto those with insurance or those without insurance who can afford to pay out of pocket. This causes insurance rates to increase to cover the extra cost the uninsured are weighing on us. So in a way yes, the insured and already paying for the uninsured.

As for the X amount of dollars are spent of health care costs. That figure is derived from the medicaid and medicare cost. A quick search on Google and you'll see figures for how fast the programs are outpacing the economy even at it's peak in 07. This figure (X% of every dollar is spent on Health care) is irrelevant to the conversation of Health Care reform in relation to the mandated insurance legislation. Having the Insurance companies take over the cost of the uninsured by forcing them to make bad business decisions isn't a good economic decision. The increased expenses the currently uninsured (we'll just use those with pre-existing conditions as the only uninsured and ignore people like myself who are healthy and choose to forgo insurance, self employed, etc) will only cause the companies to either raise premium costs or cause the Federal Government to step in an Nationalize the Health Care industry. These are the people who couldn't even rush "Cash for Clunkers" in a timely manner.




That's an understatement of the highest caliber.


To close out the post I'll put some facts and myths about the uninsured. First spoiler is from an article by the Business and Media Institute. The second spoiler is information taking directly from the website of the U.S. Census Beureau for 2008 (most current records).







If me, sounding like a prick helped you get into college then no thanks is necessary. The notion that I helped motivate someone to better themselves is all I need. Best of luck getting accepted and eventually graduating.

I've read everything and I'll reply as soon as I can gather up some data. I'll be out of town, working the next few days so keep an eye out.



I was referencing his inability to get education scholarships.

Did you just graduate this year? If not, then you slacked off somewhere. Like, during high school when you should have been setting up your scholarships. I personally knew a girl who received a "free ride" scholarship to an ivy league school before she even graduated. Not to mention she got several grants on top of that.

This is strangely optimistic from me but, the only person stopping you is yourself.

"Where there's a will, yadda yadda, etc,etc"

That is neither here not there. So, can we get back on topic? I wanna see some facts flying people!

A R.I.N.O hardly counts as a republican support. All the talk shows were raving "We have bi-partisanship! OMG WE HAVE BI-PARTISANSHIP!"

I want this to die on the vine and have the government go in a different direction than follow Europe. The Baucus bill is the most conservative of all the bills floating around congress and it still sucks. How about a congressman (or woman) come up with an original idea that doesn't try to mimic Europe nor maintain the status quo? Millions of Americans and yet we can only come up with TWO ideas.

The reason you can't torture is it's against constitution and on a bigger scale it's against international law.

I look forward to it.

Edit 10:28pm: Aww you let me down, I was honestly looking forward for another round of mental sparring.

Same goals, different methods and ideologies. I don't trust the government enough to hand over the future of my personal well being. Nor do I like the gun against my head telling me I have to spend money on an insurance policy I don't want/need nor can I afford. I'm already supporting myself and a college student. All the UHC does is increase coverage but, doesn't do a thing to lower costs as I said earlier it acts opposite of economic theory.




No matter how you slice it, I'm paying for it in the end. Either in taxes, indirect costs, etc. You are ignoring whole fields of economic theory to support your claim that it'll reduce costs by increasing expenses (people relying on the system who can't pay for it to begin with). Which will require subsidies on the governments behalf to pay for the insurance policies of those who couldn't afford it to begin with. So you have another cost of trying to insurance the uninsured. While at the same time maintaining the current level of care with the same amount of services. You can't have your cake and eat it too. Economics doesn't support your claim.






Any economist will say that, unless they fell asleep during that section of the class. It was a quote from Examiner.com, while he may be a conservative the economics of his statement hold true. The bold text is textbook economics.




The government is rather involved with UHC in other countries. The examples earlier from England are examples of the government interfering with the health care of it's people.




The problem with people not taking care of themselves means they become a bigger burden on the system. If we add the uninsured who will have to be subsidized by the Federal Government to afford the mandated insurance. That will increase the cost as well. Then we add in every uninsured for pre-existing conditions. That'll require subsidies which further adds to the cost. It makes the healthy pay for the unhealthy. A person taking care of themselves is better for the system than making somebody take care of them.

In closing, I want costs to come down but, making it universal won't help nor will the status quo. We must examine every penny of health care costs and then figure out the who, when, why and how's of each penny.

Subsidizes is another word for government funded albeit partially. That money comes from taxes. Though you have a point on preventative medicine we don't know how much it'll reduce the cost.



Every bill floating around congress makes a mandate of acquiring health coverage otherwise paying a fine. They would not drop the only method they have for making people get coverage. So it is reasonable to assume it'll be in the final draft.




I see no talk of actually reducing costs. People who are unable to work can't buy into the pool anyways, nor can the majority of the people who are unable to purchase the insurance currently. Which means that people will have to have their coverage subsidized or out right paid for by tax revenue. To include these people into the system you will raise taxes.

"A common myth is that universal government healthcare would be free or cost less than private healthcare. This belief violates several economic principles. First, the money to pay for health professionals, medicines, and facilities has to come from somewhere. If consumers don’t pay for these services directly, they will pay indirectly through higher taxes. Second, as the perceived price decreases, demand will increase. In other words, when people believe that they won’t have to pay for their healthcare, they will use more health services."





There are lies and misinformation on both sides of the debate.





Universal Health Care consolidates too much fiscal power into the hands of the Federal Government. I do not want a politician or some bureaucrat deciding whether or not I get a surgery. Without the incentive mechanism of the free market you get a large burden on the system, lack of innovation to said system,etc. Reducing cost should be the priority, not universal coverage. If we can reduce the cost so that the people who need it most can pay for it then we would all be better off.



What is the incentive for a person to eat healthy if they don't have to see a direct cost such as paying for their medication for diabetes or any medical procedure? UHC reduces incentive to take care of yourself outside the basics. IT causes people to rely on the system rather than themselves. Many Canadians I have spoke with from B.C. to Ontario to Nova Scotia have told me uniformly that the system is abused. People don't take care of themselves as well as they should because they know they won't see any direct cost.

Both systems have their flaws. Neither system is better than the other in a void. I believe we all can agree on that fact.

The problem is, society isn't a void, it's convoluted with all sorts of details and red tape.

UHC is a noble ideal but, the problem is you are taking from one group to pay for the misfortune or bad decisions of another. I have spoken with a lot of Canadians from Ontario, B.C. and Nova Scotia and they all agree that people abuse the system because they see no direct cost. A major flaw with the system is that unless you ration in some form or another. The costs will rise beyond anybody's capability to pay enough taxes to fund the system. The reason being is there is no incentive for people to take care of themselves if there will be a safety net waiting for them. A person may not get screenings because of the safety net. Then you run into problems such as medication. You have expensive drugs like the ones for H.I.V./A.I.D.S. here is a list of the medications and the cost. England has actually banned life saving drugs due to costs as well. The rationing body in England has also banned kidney treatments as well.

(H.I.V.) Link
Cancer drug Link

Kidney Treatment Link

Another problem UHC poses is Government is more likely to pass additional restrictions or increase taxes on smoking, fast food, etc., leading to a further loss of personal freedoms. Which means healthy people who take care of themselves will have to pay for the burden of those who smoke, are obese, etc. Not to mention like social security, any government benefit eventually is taken as a "right" by the public, meaning that it's politically near impossible to remove or curtail it later on when costs get out of control. The current system of disability is for the lack of a better phrase "Fucked up Royally". People with Diabetes can get disability even if it's not a crippling case but, ZiggyOtaku and I personally know someone who has had two bouts of cancer (having her thyroid removed) and requires medication to regulate her body, not to mention the plethora of other problems he has and yet she is denied coverage. The people who actually need the coverage are not getting it.

The problems with the current system are the rising costs that exceed the rise of income per year. People with existing conditions are denied future coverage if they lose their insurance afterward. An example would be I get cancer but, I have insurance for the treatment from my place of employment. Lets say I change jobs or lose that job and lose the coverage my employer gave me. I would not be able to get coverage afterward as I have a "pre-existing condition". This could cause me to lose my home and other possessions as I could not afford the treatment in order to remain a productive member of society.

This is a problem of affordability, so if we can find a way to reduce cost then we can continue with this system. People will have to learn to get preventive screenings, take better care of themselves. Also curb the trend in medicine to just throw pills at the problem until it "goes away". Which in reality just covers the symptoms rather than treats it.

Now, I have an idea that I think would help the UHC system find a solid plan and strategy to maximize care while minimizing costs. Allow the citizens of each state to vote whether of not they want a system like that. Massachusetts has a system which mandated that everybody obtain health insurance coverage. Massachusetts provides free health care for residents earning less than 150% of the Federal Poverty Level (FPL), and partially subsidized health care for those earning up to 300% of the FPL, depending on an income-based sliding scale. There are problems with this system but, the demand for a working system will cause each state to become creative. If a state claims it'll "Tax the rich" as a way to pass legislation, the rich will move out of state (like they did in New York when it raised income tax). This is a way to iron out a model before throwing everybody into the mix. This will also create incentive for the companies to reduce the overall cost as they know if they don't come up with a solution that the UHC will be passed eventually which will affect their profits in a undesirable way. Pit the two systems against one another to find a solution that works best for all.

I wasn't using your post count as so way to dismiss you. You are a newer user and haven't had the please/displeasure of interacting with me a lot. Most of the older users here know that I take a long time to come to a decision and will actually change positions a lot as new information comes to light. I have my principals but, my views change as much as the tides (bit of an exaggeration but, it sounded cool).

Back to the issue though.



Here is where you and I have philosophical differences. I see a many always has options until life or death are the last two. If somebody kidnapped his family and made him do it. I would feel sympathetic to the man but, I would still defend my family and/or property. Drugs, debt, alcohol,etc are all excuses for illegal behavior and only seek to excuse the man for such behavior instead of making the person responsible for their actions.



In my eyes a (Federal) governments job is:
1: Courts (To create laws)
2: Cops (To enforce those laws and protect citizens)
3: Military (To protect the citizens from external threats

I believe every person has rights but, those rights can't be used to violate the rights of another. Except in defense of those rights to begin with. In other words, if you use your rights to try to violate my rights, I am justified to defend them which may or may not require lethal force.

Nice try but, the statutes of the Nobel Foundation, lists of nominations are held for 50 years, so the official list of the Nobel Peace Prize Nominees for 2009 will not be available until at least 2059.

How about we not wait 50 years and you come up with a reason as to why he deserved the award from the date of August 4, 196 to October 5, 2009. All I know is that he flew around the world apologizing for his country not being like them. Increased the National debt, constantly blames he predecessor for every problem that he faces instead of a manning up and just fixing the problem without a bunch of partisan whining. Not to mention being the commander in Chief of two wars. Not exactly PEACE prize material if you ask me but, Gibbous has already proven that the award actually means nothing.

Empty suit winning an empty award with a bunch of empty minds backing him up.

Actually, I would have gained respect for Obama if he turned the award down.



You only made my closing point from the first post. Pure politics.



Point taken.

A man has attempted to deprive me of my life or has threatened the life of my loved ones. I would prefer not to but, if I must I will kill him. Damn the laws and damn anybody who attempts to stop me.




I think long and hard before I come to any conclusion. So the "think before you speak" comment was boarder line insulting to me but, I'll overlook it as you are new.

As for the "every guy who makes a mistake". The man had the option of breaking the law and robbing me or following the law and not robbing me. You defend the man's criminal actions due to some misplaced guilt over their situation. Your stance tells me that a man isn't responsible for his actions no matter what the situation. He has debt so that makes it morally right for him to break into my home and take the things that I have worked years to obtain? Your logic is backwards if you believe that.

I am not advocating blowing off everyone's heads. All I am saying is, if he is trying to steal my possessions, I will pull a gun on him and make him stop. If he refuses I will fire either a warning shot or I will shoot him in the leg to make him stop (depending on the weapon of course). If he becomes a legit threat to either me or my loved ones. I will put him down and he will not get up. I will not tolerate any threat to the well being of my family, loved ones or myself.

As for anybody who believes "let the police handle it". The police here are incompetent, they're cops because they want the power to push you around. They have the power to arrest you for exercising your own constitutional rights. They beat or stomp a suspect, and what happens? Maybe some desk duty or some paid leave. Only the really bad ones are ever punished for their actions. Even then it's usually a slap on the wrist. Anybody who disagrees, I suggest you look up the "Donut Social" by the band "Leftöver Crack" on September 5, 2008.

So you believe being elected president should make you a nomination for the Nobel Peace prize? Just because he's not Bush isn't a valid reason to give him the award. How about we actually give him the award after he has some actual results instead of speeches and promises.

Also, I wasn't a fan of Bush either but, the "stimulus" bill has increased our debt by more than Bush did. Also Bush had no control over the actual spending. Blame congress for that, since they were the ones with the purse strings. The congress was majority Democrat in the second term so.

Again, people are mad because Obama hasn't done anything for the award. Other than "Not being Bush".

Personal view on the issue. Another way of saying "The way I have always viewed the issue was..."



Obvious exaggeration but, this is the south, we have guns and we'll use'em.

In Michigan the laws are different but, I agree with you that they laws are rather stupid. You have a right to own property and you should be allowed to defend your property by whatever means you deem necessary.