Quantcast
  1. Sign up now and join over 35,000 northwest gun owners. It's quick, easy, and 100% free!

Health Care Bill and Gun Compromise...

Discussion in 'Legal & Political Archive' started by Morpheus, Mar 21, 2010.

  1. Morpheus

    Morpheus Columbia Gorge Anyway, back on the farm.

    Messages:
    1,113
    Likes Received:
    589
    Greetings all,

    My goal with this is to get some conversation going about what seems like an almost obvious idea to me. Though, as this is the web, one must take most of anything on here with a grain of salt.

    So here goes the idea. Personally I think that a National Health care system isn't a bad or good idea. It is how you implement it that makes it a good idea or bad idea. So far, from the copies of the bill I've read (in part not in whole, don't have that type of free time) it has been filled with crap. Lots of crap.

    Thus you get people politicians fighting over how to change it. Or how to compromise over this or that. Great. Super. Bleh, bleh.

    One thing recently which sparked my interest is that the recent form now has an addendum about expanding the college funding. OK. Now we are talking. It seems like someone out there figured out how our government is suppose to work. Name of the game, Compromise.

    So, this is my long winded way of saying, if the Conservative's (I use this lightly as who knows what that means any more) REALLY want to protect gun rights, why don't they add an addendum which would protect our gun rights as long as the health care is in place? Or perhaps even further, a National Conceal Carry Permit? Not registration, or licence, but like the Oregon or Washington or Utah CHL. Or perhaps an NFA repeal? Or Removal of ATF. :thumbup:

    Huh? Say just 10 Conservatives in the Senate choose to support this addition and by proxy the Health Care Bill. Then say they were able to get 20 or 30 people in the House to support it. All of a sudden you have Health Care (Sure not great) and Gun Rights protection linked to that Health Care.

    Think about it. The supporters of the Health Care Bill would have to make a choice. A hard choice. Either toss all of it or, Compromise.

    NOW, I understand the devil is in the details. It might be a horrible idea, or it might be a great idea. But at a high level, and as a compromise, why hasn't anyone thought about this?

    I mean, you would have anti-gun folk having to make a really hard choice. Go for Health care, knowing all of us 'crazy' gun nuts would now have firm reinforcement of our rights, or let it drop knowing they screwed up and could compromise.

    Seems like an easy win-win, lose-lose path to me.

    Thoughts?
    M
     
  2. Stomper

    Stomper Oceania Rising White Is The New Brown Silver Supporter

    Messages:
    12,888
    Likes Received:
    19,462
    They would never get that sort of ammendment out of committee with the schlubs that are CURRENTLY running that place.
     
  3. soberups

    soberups Newberg Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,334
    Likes Received:
    1,397
    This sort of convoluted deal-making is the reason our political process is so screwed up to begin with.

    Just remember; that sort of deal-making can work both ways. If one manipulates the process for ones gain, others can manipulate that same process to your detriment.
     
  4. el gringo loco

    el gringo loco PDX Member

    Messages:
    275
    Likes Received:
    6
    What you have described is exactly how politics is supposed to work and how, until the last 20-30 years, it has worked in the good ol' US Congress. Rural states that desired something to help farmers would have to tack on something to assist densely populated urban states, etc. I like the way you are thinking.

    In a perfect world, or at least how I would like to see things work, we would acknowledge that elections have consequences. The party in power would dictate the agenda. However, because we are in a democracy and that power is not absolute and only lasts for a finite period of time, the party in the minority would get to have input and seek concessions that, while not a total victory, would make the bills the majority party passes more palatable. On bills that have a huge philosophical divide, the minority party, acknowledging that they do not support the intent of the bill at all, could at least gain victories on unrelated issues. I believe politics is the art of compromise.

    However, the current minority party, the Republicans have decided that there is no upside to being conciliatory. I don't agree with the philosophy, but acknowledge that playing the obstructionist probably has the best odds for returning that party to power. Simply put: there is no upside to being cooperative or pragmatic for the Republicans. Opposing the Democrats on every issue (and still losing) will yield more votes than actually making progress on one or two other issues (and losing on the main issue anyhow). As far as guns go, the Republicans learned long ago that by opposing anti-gun legislation, they got all the pro-gun votes. They needn't expend political capital pushing forward any legislation themselves to get those votes ( that's why 8 years of Bush, 6 with Republican Congress didn't result in any significant pro-gun legislation).
     
  5. MountainBear

    MountainBear Sweet Home, OR Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    3,645
    Likes Received:
    2,371
    The entire thing makes me want to :banghead::banghead:

    I'm going to be a criminal because I don't want to be forced into HAVING to have healthcare. Sure I want it, but I don't want it forced on me...
     
  6. swoop

    swoop Milwaukie, Oregon Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    2,079
    Likes Received:
    281
    The thing is 2000 pages to long now:confused: lots of job security for the lawyers though. :nuts:
     
  7. mudnducs

    mudnducs Oregon City Member

    Messages:
    89
    Likes Received:
    0
    This monstrosity has passed....forced on us by our progreeeeeessive neighbors through a socialist President and Congress and unquestioningly accepted by a complicit press.

    Thank them properly. Fire Them ALL this fall. Get a conservative Congress in place...then IMPEACH Obama.
     
  8. Stomper

    Stomper Oceania Rising White Is The New Brown Silver Supporter

    Messages:
    12,888
    Likes Received:
    19,462
    Fire them all, then set them all on fire... :angry:
     
  9. unionguy

    unionguy Portland Active Member

    Messages:
    690
    Likes Received:
    58
    Yeah, the sooner we stop labelling each other as "conservative", "socialist", "liberal", or "progressive" the better off we'll all be. Those terms have now been soooooo mis-used they have become nearly meaningless. Why don't you actually try talking about WHAT someone believes in or is advocating instead of using labels to then label people so you can stop thinking about their ideas.

    What happens now is someone starts talking and everyone thinks in their head "he's a liberal" or "she's a conservative" and now I can stop listening to them because they aren't like me.

    Our Founding Fathers did not act, nor think, like that. They exposed themselves to all sorts of ideas, debated, and then decided.

    The way far too many Americans act now is ideological. It makes for good politics, but not good policy or governance. That's why I am MOST leery of political leaders who spend most of their time throwing around labels, instead of promoting reasoned debate based upon the actual ideas of something.
     
  10. fingolfen

    fingolfen Oregon Member

    Messages:
    749
    Likes Received:
    3
    We haven't had reasoned political debate in this country in decades...
     
  11. bugeye

    bugeye Oregon Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,098
    Likes Received:
    12
    The penalty for not having health care insurance is going to be some extra taxes, honest they are never going to put anyone in prison for it, sheesh!

    We have a law that mandates that you have car insurance if you drive, and that makes sense because otherwise taxpayers are going to have to pick up the tab if you have an accident. do you object to that law too?

    Because it is pretty much the same argument, we all have bodies.
     
  12. bugeye

    bugeye Oregon Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,098
    Likes Received:
    12
    Reason takes too many words, long live the sound bite!
    Fact is, most of the people I've discussed these issues with only have the sound bites, thinking gets in the way of loudly yapping indoctinated oversimplifictions while maintaining a death grip on a model of the universe that has less moving parts than a veg-0-matic.
     
  13. Stomper

    Stomper Oceania Rising White Is The New Brown Silver Supporter

    Messages:
    12,888
    Likes Received:
    19,462

    that is apple to oranges... you driving is a privledge, (you get a state issued license that you agree to those terms of its use when you get it), and your doing it on goverment built/funded roads in an activety that is hazardous so the government can rightfully regulate that... you shouldn't/can't mandate a requirement on somebody "just because they're alive". :thumbup:
     
  14. TAT2D

    TAT2D Portland Member

    Messages:
    215
    Likes Received:
    3
    You're required to carry liability, to cover the other people or property you might hurt with your car, not your own.
    Also, even that is a change within (some of) our lifetimes -- as late as about the 60s (?), in Oregon you could post a bond in lieu of carrying insurance.

    MrB
     
  15. bugeye

    bugeye Oregon Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,098
    Likes Received:
    12
    Yes, just because they are alive, that's enough. Bodies break down. No one is turned away from emergency rooms where the care is very expensive and the insureds end up paying for that, as well as for every other aspect of a system that seems to be designed to be as wasteful as possible. This plan has everyone paying something and that is more fair!

    We have a huge problem in this country with alienating people. People who hate our system are expensive. They are created when they are hounded for medical bills they can never pay, when they are made 5th class citizens by credit scores, and when creditors are allowed to charge people over 30% interest. When these people go bad we the taxpayers end up taking care of them. The powerful institutions that abused these folks to the point of them becomming domestic terrorists don't pay a dime. This isn't fair either. An unfair system is expensive.
     
  16. Father of four

    Father of four Portland, Oregon Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    4,311
    Likes Received:
    1,687
    I thought that we pay our taxes to the local government to make the roads and do the upkeep. our money but they tell us it's a privilege from them to us to let us use the roads that we pay for? Something messed up there, I just know it. :huh:
     
  17. Teufel_Hunden

    Teufel_Hunden Albany, Oregon Active Member

    Messages:
    429
    Likes Received:
    41
    PURE Socialism................

    T_H
     
  18. natef

    natef Gresham OR Active Member

    Messages:
    131
    Likes Received:
    60
    Here is my thought on it. I wonder how long it will be untill the fact that I legaly cc affects what my premiem is. A goverment ran program would be able to see my permit and with that they could adjust what I pay. I dont see this as right. I also have EOD experience from my time in the service. will I have to pay more because of this? there is nothing saying that they wont adjust your cost to what you have done or do. what makes me think that they wont? While I think that National Health care could be a good thing I think that this document was TOO BIG and that since no one was really able to read the whole thing or understand it all there is alot that could bite us.
     
  19. MountainBear

    MountainBear Sweet Home, OR Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    3,645
    Likes Received:
    2,371
    Spoken like a rich person who already has insurance. That may or may not be the case, but you sure talk the part. I don't want to pay extra taxes just for the "privilege" of being alive and living in the US.

    Honestly, I have a legitimate choice on whether or not I choose to drive a vehicle. There are reasonable alternatives. I could walk, I could choose to pay to take public transportation. I could ride a bike.

    But where are the options for this? Either get healthcare or pay us more money. My options? Either bend and break and get healthcare, refuse and be fined (yes, its going to be administered by the IRS, but its still a fine, not a tax), or what? Leave the country? These options would have the founding fathers rolling over in their graves.

    I want to have healthcare. But I want it on my terms. This is not about the government protecting us from unscrupulous business practices. This is about control. Control that they have no CONSTITUTIONAL right to enact.

    If you like the idea so much Bugeye, after the courts throw this bill into the furnace of history, there's a country about 400 miles north with socialized medicine in place. The quality isn't great, but don't let the door hit you on the way out.
     
  20. nixuser

    nixuser nw Member

    Messages:
    174
    Likes Received:
    0
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.