democrats for gun ownership

I could cover most ordinary expenses out of pocket effortlessly. The problem comes with medications, which until two just went generic this year, were running me $4000 per year. Then you add on to that the PT I had last year, marginally covered by health insurance, which cost me $3000. Add into that my annual insurance premiums and you're talking $18,000 per year. -And forget Dental, that's another $6k per year for my family, not including premiums.
Great, the "free market has failed" drone... [sad2]

We don't have a free market in healthcare and there are few alive who have ever seen one. The cost mushrooming you are complaining about is not the free market run amok. It is medicare, insurance regulation, and anti-trust cartels protected by and created by government and its regulation.

Much like student loan debt, the problem is not the market. Student loans have mushroomed because government lending has mushroomed. The market expanded to consume the available cash thrown at it - EXACTLY like healthcare has in response to all the regulations and tax policies that do the same.

Almost every (perhaps every) complaint you have and detail you can describe WRT costs of medical care that you attribute to the market is actually a consequence of the arrogance of government and the gullibility of the public in believing them when they claim they can make it better with regulation.

The fundamental, "fix this and you fix everything else with healthcare," is the disconnect between producer and consumer. We don't pay for things directly so we have no idea how much they cost until well after the fact. Providers often don't even know how much they are charging. All of this is because of the abuse of the concept of insurance and the regulation that has followed. You cannot insure that which is certain or even almost certain to occur. That you just have to pay for. Insurance requires a RISK, not a certainty of occurrence to be anything more than just a transaction cost.

Publicly this regulation has been to "control costs". In reality, much of that regulation has been the result of insurance companies lobbying to protect their profits by force of law against the pressures of the market you so hate.

If we paid for regular care/products directly, in cash then the only items of concern would be much more statistically rare events for which there would be catastrophic coverage.

If we did not bundle our insurance through employers (an idiot result of tax laws and wage controls of the post WWII era), then there would be little issue of "pre-existing conditions" for this sort of insurance.

If we did not have the medicare, HMO, insurance cartels, then we would not see price fixing, collusion and market exclusionary practices that inflate costs.

All of these issues are caused by government intervention and all of them have been with us for decades because of, wait for it...

POLICIES AND AGENDAS OF THE DEMOCRAT PARTY GOING BACK TO FDR.

Now, to be fair, the GOP has adopted many of those policies in recent decades as well, so they too are to blame for taking AARP money to save medicare when it should be killed and SS when it should be shut down.

More importantly though, the failure of the GOP here is IN BEHAVING LIKE DEMOCRATS by adopting FDR style "new deal" statist policies.

Same goes for gun laws. Yes, you are correct that the GOP has plenty of blood on their hands, but in those cases, which were generally the exception to the historical rule of the party, they were generally falling in line with policies of the broader DNC agenda.
 
Last edited:
Un-drift thread ? ...

So I don't need to worry about gun control anymore because the Dems aren't pro gun control.

Who are these people are that want to close the Gun Show Loophole , or install Common Sense gun laws , Micro-stamping, Smart guns, gun insurance, ammo registration, attempted bans on .50's , changed the Federal NICS regs to retroactively deny citizens their rights , continue the Mass/Chicago/new York/Cali/DC/Newjersey system of 2a "rights" , import bans , NFA-GCA, Mass AWB , propaganda about cop killer bullets/Shoulder things that go up/5 evil features/hicap mags, the fact that George Mason and Thomas Jefferson were talking about smoothbore muskets , want the people to leave that whole self defense thing up to the police ?

It is the fault of someone that I do not think is a Conservative , that led me to live in The USA , in a town whose militia fought in Lexington and the Bunker Hill and can not buy a Colt 1911 to sit next to a suppressed 22 rifle while I save up for a full auto gun.
 
Un-drift thread ? ...

So I don't need to worry about gun control anymore because the Dems aren't pro gun control.

Who are these people are that want to close the Gun Show Loophole , or install Common Sense gun laws , Micro-stamping, Smart guns, gun insurance, ammo registration, attempted bans on .50's , changed the Federal NICS regs to retroactively deny citizens their rights , continue the Mass/Chicago/new York/Cali/DC/Newjersey system of 2a "rights" , import bans , NFA-GCA, Mass AWB , propaganda about cop killer bullets/Shoulder things that go up/5 evil features/hicap mags, the fact that George Mason and Thomas Jefferson were talking about smoothbore muskets , want the people to leave that whole self defense thing up to the police ?

It is the fault of someone that I do not think is a Conservative , that led me to live in The USA , in a town whose militia fought in Lexington and the Bunker Hill and can not buy a Colt 1911 to sit next to a suppressed 22 rifle while I save up for a full auto gun.
The TEA party, of course. [laugh]

I was bringing it back at the end there... [wink]
 
Last edited:
Un-drift thread ? ...

So I don't need to worry about gun control anymore because the Dems aren't pro gun control.

Who are these people are that want to close the Gun Show Loophole , or install Common Sense gun laws , Micro-stamping, Smart guns, gun insurance, ammo registration, attempted bans on .50's , changed the Federal NICS regs to retroactively deny citizens their rights , continue the Mass/Chicago/new York/Cali/DC/Newjersey system of 2a "rights" , import bans , NFA-GCA, Mass AWB , propaganda about cop killer bullets/Shoulder things that go up/5 evil features/hicap mags, the fact that George Mason and Thomas Jefferson were talking about smoothbore muskets , want the people to leave that whole self defense thing up to the police ?

It is the fault of someone that I do not think is a Conservative , that led me to live in The USA , in a town whose militia fought in Lexington and the Bunker Hill and can not buy a Colt 1911 to sit next to a suppressed 22 rifle while I save up for a full auto gun.

Oh yeah: And weren't they the same people who INVENTED gun control to disarm black people. Including Jim Crow laws banning Saturday Night N*****town specials ( Democrat politician's terms , not mine )
 
I'mnot trying to flame, but look at the effect that privatization had on British pensions: they essentially threw their social security on the free market (I can't remember if it was a Thatcher or Brown initiative) and it failed-- miserably.

The free market does some things exceptionally well: one thing it doesn't do well is REPLACE government, which is what a lot of people claim to want.

This is the crux of the whole discussion.

What functions do each of us think are inherently "Governmental"??

Republicans think its the Government's job to:

1) limit my access to drugs that could hurt me
2) limit my access to sexual activities that offend their sense of decency.
3) listen in on my phone calls and read my emails so that in case I'm a terrorist, they can catch me.
4) attempt to impose a Jeffersonian democracy on a country filled with illiterate goat herders who would be busy killing each other if we weren't there to provide them with a convenient common enemy.

Democrats think its Government's job to:

1) Require that those with enough money to buy health insurance, but who do not bother to do so, buy health insurance.
2) Define what health insurance companies must offer as a part of their policy, rather than allowing the free market to determine that. (If there was adequate demand for a certain kind of policy, the market would fill that need)
3) Prohibit health insurance companies from operating across state lines, thus maximizing the effectiveness of the free market and allowing larger, more predictable risk pools.
4) Regulate the energy industry to the point where many companies don't even bother exploring in the continental USA anymore.
5) Regulate the interstate commerce in firearms.
and lots of other things.

The Statists that hold the power in both parties only differ in what aspects of social and economic life that the government should control. All of them implement on a daily basis, policies that are FAR FAR from what the founders envisioned.

If you think that the federal government should:
1) build and maintain roads and other infrastructure
2) provide for a standing army powerful enough to repel any and all potential invaders
3) provide for a structured legal system to be used by the populace

and not much more, then you are a libertarian. I HATE it when people lump libertarians in with conservatives. That could not be farther from the truth. Libertarians have as much in common with liberals as they do with conservatives.

Don
 
Last edited:
Dcmdon, I think you might find they are closer than that on many issues including listening to phone calls...

That said, that is the problem. We have two brands of statism from which to choose. Neither is compatible with the constitution, self determination or any of the concepts that made this nation great.
 
Re health care.

This is a very VERY telling graphic:

uninsured_chart.jpg


It shows how few of the people without insurance REALLY deserve any help.

If you remove aliens, people who make more than $75,000/yr and choose not to buy insurance, and those who choose not to enroll in either existing Gov't programs or employer plans, you are left with 12 million people.

It would seem that we could deal with that small a number of people without ripping the guts out of the best health care system on the planet.
 
Re health care.

This is a very VERY telling graphic:

It shows how few of the people without insurance REALLY deserve any help.

If you remove illegals, people who make more than $75,000/yr and choose not to buy insurance, and those who choose not to enroll in either existing Gov't programs or employer plans, you are left with 12 million people.

It would seem that we could deal with that small a number of people without ripping the guts out of the best health care system on the planet.
but, but, but, but... We have to "remove the stigma of welfare.". The easiest way to do that is make sure that everyone needs it and/or is required to use it.

[hmmm]. <- this guy wishes he were kidding or wrong...
 
If I want to Bang my buddy bob while watching a german scheisse video, while smoking dope, surfing the web looking at web sites with instructions on bomb building, and simultaniously burning a flag, its none of my governments business.
The R's want to make it your government's business.

And if I want to make boat loads of money while amassing hundreds of guns and tens of thousands of rounds of ammunition as the fruits of my labors, then its none of my governments concern other than taxing me at the minimum necessary to supply basic services. The D's have a problem with this.

Neither side really supports your right to do any of these things, they just hint at being more ok with it than the other guy. I don't see D's legalizing drugs, expanding freedom by getting rid of the patriot act, etc. And I don't see the R's supporting true capitalism, or supporting my gun rights in any meaningful way.
 
If you think that the federal government should:
1) build and maintain roads and other infrastructure
2) provide for a standing army powerful enough to repel any and all potential invaders
3) provide for a structured legal system to be used by the populace

and not much more, then you are a libertarian. I HATE it when people lump libertarians in with conservatives. That could not be farther from the truth. Libertarians have as much in common with liberals as they do with conservatives.

Don

Great post!

And Bill, I understand you might feel that private medicine has "failed" (although that's kind of silly since we have some of the best health care in the world, although it certainly isn't "private"), but to that I say, so what? Just because an industry SHOULD be private doesn't mean it HAS to be successful! Health care simply isn't a right! Therefore the government shouldn't have any say in it! Maybe it's just a fact of life that the best health care available simply isn't affordable to the masses. Equate it to other things. Most people have the need for transportation. That doesn't mean they all should get a caddy, and it certainly doesn't entitle everyone to one. Some people have to drive a 95' honda. Some people walk. And the government certainly shouldn't be giving everyone the same healthcare just as they shouldn't be buying everyone that caddy. Neither are rights.
 
Neither side really supports your right to do any of these things, they just hint at being more ok with it than the other guy. I don't see D's legalizing drugs, expanding freedom by getting rid of the patriot act, etc. And I don't see the R's supporting true capitalism, or supporting my gun rights in any meaningful way.

I agree. I got sloppy. Your finessed answer that they hint at being more Ok with it is much closer to the truth. Thanks.

Re private medicine. Part of the problem is that the medical industry and the insurance industry are so highly regulated.

My wife used to work for a pharma that had developed drug delivery systems to help the terminally ill manage pain. Approval of these products takes years and costs tens of millions of dollars. And these are for "fast track" drugs intended to be used only on the terminally ill.

Re insurance, how about removing some of the restrictions that INHIBIT market forces in the insurance markets? How about letting Ins Cos compete across state lines for business?
 
Last edited:
Re health care.

Here is the real problem. Its one that everyone from Libertarians to Socialists dance around and few explicitly really talks about.

You have people who refuse to buy insurance. When they require medical attention that they can't pay for Doctors and Hospitals are required BY LAW to provide the care.

So now you and I end up paying for the care.

This is where the comparisons to fixing your car fail. Your mechanic is not required by law to fix your car. Docs in hospitals are required to provide you care.

How do you fix this situation without forcing people to buy insurance or socializing medicine?

I don't know. I don't think it can be done.

So based on my read of the problem, there are 3 choices:

1) allow doctors to refuse care to those who can't pay for it. - I vote for this choice when the situation involves an affluent person who chose not to buy insurance. If they want to roll the dice its their choice. With the current system there is little down side to rolling the dice.
2) continue with the current system where the costs of providing care to the uninsured are absorbed by the insured
3) Some variation of the personal mandate or socialized medicine.

I've tried to make the above analysis as apolitical as possible. I'm not offering opinions, just trying to frame the problem.

And its a heck of a problem. And its un-solvable is you believe in the sanctity of the individual.
 
Dcmdon, doctors and hospitals are only required to provide care in a specific set of circumstances. Further, there is a great deal of charity that goes into the system the covers the majority of this. They just want their charity and their full pay as well.

Yes this most certainly adds cost in the system, but isn't the primary reason that costs are out of control. Costs are out of control because they can be. Specifically the insurance system and Medicare provide an ever increasing and vast pool of money that the system expands to consume.

We have disconnected consumers and producers. Everyone wants to try to solve the various symptoms of this broken system from ER as primary care to ambulance chasing lawyers, but in the end those are all symptoms of the money pit that is government care prior to BarryCare created.

Anyway, sorry for the drift. Republicans and democrats both suck as parties and politicians, but when it comes to guns, the democrats suck more.
 
Last edited:
so the next election we get to choose between a gun hating democrat and a former gun hating republican disguising himself as a lifetime NRA member

how exciting
 
so the next election we get to choose between a gun hating democrat and a former gun hating republican disguising himself as a lifetime NRA member

how exciting

Who "hunts varmints. . . . .if you will"

Re healthcare costs. Great point about what happens when the customer is not the consumer.

For those of you who don't get the point, when the person receiving the service is not the person paying for the service, market forces are distorted. The consumer no longer weighs cost and benefit.
 
Back
Top Bottom