I suggest we call it "Obamagun"

Quote:Five South Dakota lawmakers have introduced legislation that would require any adult 21 or older to buy a firearm “sufficient to provide for their ordinary self-defense.”

Quote:Rep. Hal Wick, R-Sioux Falls, is sponsoring the bill and knows it will be killed. But he said he is introducing it to prove a point that the federal health care reform mandate passed last year is unconstitutional.

“Do I or the other cosponsors believe that the State of South Dakota can require citizens to buy firearms? Of course not. But at the same time, we do not believe the federal government can order every citizen to buy health insurance,” he said

http://www.argusleader.com/article/20110...ns-buy-gun

I think you can make a stronger case for buying a gun.

Can't force people to buy a firearm either, so he's making a good point.

(02-01-2011 09:51 AM)Lord Stanley Wrote:  I suggest we call it "Obamagun"

Quote:Five South Dakota lawmakers have introduced legislation that would require any adult 21 or older to buy a firearm “sufficient to provide for their ordinary self-defense.”

Quote:Rep. Hal Wick, R-Sioux Falls, is sponsoring the bill and knows it will be killed. But he said he is introducing it to prove a point that the federal health care reform mandate passed last year is unconstitutional.

“Do I or the other cosponsors believe that the State of South Dakota can require citizens to buy firearms? Of course not. But at the same time, we do not believe the federal government can order every citizen to buy health insurance,” he said

http://www.argusleader.com/article/20110...ns-buy-gun

Well, the difference is, if I don't buy insurance and then end up in the hospital with costs beyond my means, the hospital ends up passing the cost on to others. So I can see trying to make sure the patient is at least paying something. Only other choice is to tell the patient they're out of luck and they can go die at home. Don't know about whether Obamacare is constitutional though. They do require car insurance, why is that constitutional?

(02-01-2011 11:42 AM)NIU007 Wrote:  They do require car insurance, why is that constitutional?

Car insurance is required as a condition to drive a car. Just like the precedent being cited by some on the left that sailors had to buy insurance to sail.

If you tie it to some activity, it's doable. If the only activity is simply remaining alive, it's not. That's a pretty clear standard.

Actually, I think the individual mandate may be one of the best features of Obamacare. Much better than, say, the Health Choices Commission.

(02-01-2011 11:42 AM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(02-01-2011 09:51 AM)Lord Stanley Wrote:  I suggest we call it "Obamagun"

Quote:Five South Dakota lawmakers have introduced legislation that would require any adult 21 or older to buy a firearm “sufficient to provide for their ordinary self-defense.”

Quote:Rep. Hal Wick, R-Sioux Falls, is sponsoring the bill and knows it will be killed. But he said he is introducing it to prove a point that the federal health care reform mandate passed last year is unconstitutional.

“Do I or the other cosponsors believe that the State of South Dakota can require citizens to buy firearms? Of course not. But at the same time, we do not believe the federal government can order every citizen to buy health insurance,” he said

http://www.argusleader.com/article/20110...ns-buy-gun

Well, the difference is, if I don't buy insurance and then end up in the hospital with costs beyond my means, the hospital ends up passing the cost on to others. So I can see trying to make sure the patient is at least paying something. Only other choice is to tell the patient they're out of luck and they can go die at home. Don't know about whether Obamacare is constitutional though. They do require car insurance, why is that constitutional?

Because you don't have to a car in order to be in compliance with federal law. No car=no requirement to buy insurance. If there was a mandate to buy a car and insurance there would be an issue.

(02-01-2011 11:42 AM)NIU007 Wrote:  Well, the difference is, if I don't buy insurance and then end up in the hospital with costs beyond my means, the hospital ends up passing the cost on to others. So I can see trying to make sure the patient is at least paying something. Only other choice is to tell the patient they're out of luck and they can go die at home. Don't know about whether Obamacare is constitutional though. They do require car insurance, why is that constitutional?

That's the private hospital's problem. Why should tax dollars go towards paying for a private hospital's losses? How about Target? Stores like that jack up their costs to cover for any losses incurred during each quarter. Should tax dollars go to Target to cover their losses so they can keep prices down?

(02-01-2011 11:42 AM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(02-01-2011 09:51 AM)Lord Stanley Wrote:  I suggest we call it "Obamagun"

Quote:Five South Dakota lawmakers have introduced legislation that would require any adult 21 or older to buy a firearm “sufficient to provide for their ordinary self-defense.”

Quote:Rep. Hal Wick, R-Sioux Falls, is sponsoring the bill and knows it will be killed. But he said he is introducing it to prove a point that the federal health care reform mandate passed last year is unconstitutional.

“Do I or the other cosponsors believe that the State of South Dakota can require citizens to buy firearms? Of course not. But at the same time, we do not believe the federal government can order every citizen to buy health insurance,” he said

http://www.argusleader.com/article/20110...ns-buy-gun

Well, the difference is, if I don't buy insurance and then end up in the hospital with costs beyond my means, the hospital ends up passing the cost on to others. So I can see trying to make sure the patient is at least paying something. Only other choice is to tell the patient they're out of luck and they can go die at home. Don't know about whether Obamacare is constitutional though. They do require car insurance, why is that constitutional?

If you don't own a gun and can't shoot someone who breaks into your home, then the costs of incarcerating him/her are passed on to everyone else.

(02-01-2011 12:17 PM)Rebel Wrote:  

(02-01-2011 11:42 AM)NIU007 Wrote:  Well, the difference is, if I don't buy insurance and then end up in the hospital with costs beyond my means, the hospital ends up passing the cost on to others. So I can see trying to make sure the patient is at least paying something. Only other choice is to tell the patient they're out of luck and they can go die at home. Don't know about whether Obamacare is constitutional though. They do require car insurance, why is that constitutional?

That's the private hospital's problem. Why should tax dollars go towards paying for a private hospital's losses? How about Target? Stores like that jack up their costs to cover for any losses incurred during each quarter. Should tax dollars go to Target to cover their losses so they can keep prices down?

I wouldn't argue that tax dollars should cover it. I'm arguing that everyone is already paying for it (except for those without insurance, though I'm sure they're paying what they can), as the hospitals pass on their costs. Unless you never use a hospital or other medical clinic that is passing on their costs.

How about raising everyone's taxes and then giving them a free gun? Isn't that how the left does things?

(02-01-2011 01:29 PM)smn1256 Wrote:  How about raising everyone's taxes and then giving them a free gun? Isn't that how the left does things?

Yep, tax you 4 grand and give you a hundred dollar .25 that they paid $400 for.

Or as the right does it, lower taxes, continue to increase spending, watch the deficit expand, and then wait until the Democrats are in the White House to start complaining about how big the deficit is.

(02-01-2011 02:17 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  Or as the right does it, lower taxes, continue to increase spending, watch the deficit expand, and then wait until the Democrats are in the White House to start complaining about how big the deficit is.

Name a conservative on this board that wanted to increase spending.

Democrats = increase spending, increase taxes.

Republicans = increase spending, decrease taxes.

True fiscal conservatives = decrease spending, decrease taxes.

I'll take the 3rd.

(02-01-2011 02:20 PM)Rebel Wrote:  

(02-01-2011 02:17 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  Or as the right does it, lower taxes, continue to increase spending, watch the deficit expand, and then wait until the Democrats are in the White House to start complaining about how big the deficit is.

Name a conservative on this board that wanted to increase spending.

Democrats = increase spending, increase taxes.

Republicans = increase spending, decrease taxes.

True fiscal conservatives = decrease spending, decrease taxes.

I'll take the 3rd.

Which one is the dumbest of the three?

(02-01-2011 11:45 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  If you tie it to some activity, it's doable. If the only activity is simply remaining alive, it's not. That's a pretty clear standard.

Actually, I suspect it would be perfectly constitutional to require every citizen to buy a gun, as the militia is entirely within the states' power to regulate.

(02-01-2011 12:17 PM)Rebel Wrote:  That's the private hospital's problem. Why should tax dollars go towards paying for a private hospital's losses?

Because even private hospitals cannot turn away ER patients by law, and have to hold them for a certain amount of time (most likely till they're stable) regardless of insurance status. I get the reasoning for mandating health insurance or being forced to pay a tax for it (I don't know the statistics, but I would wager that of uninsured ER patients a much greater majority can't afford insurance rather than simply choose not to pay for it), but it simply looks to fix the end of a chain of problems caused by deeper issues such as why health care is so expensive to begin with. The president is right that the emphasis should be on preventative medicine: heart bypass surgery is much more expensive, riskier, and complicated than getting 3 ounces of blood drawn and tested and having the doctor smack you over the head telling you to stop eating the damn McDonald's because you have high cholesterol.

(02-01-2011 11:42 AM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(02-01-2011 09:51 AM)Lord Stanley Wrote:  I suggest we call it "Obamagun"

Quote:Five South Dakota lawmakers have introduced legislation that would require any adult 21 or older to buy a firearm “sufficient to provide for their ordinary self-defense.”

Quote:Rep. Hal Wick, R-Sioux Falls, is sponsoring the bill and knows it will be killed. But he said he is introducing it to prove a point that the federal health care reform mandate passed last year is unconstitutional.

“Do I or the other cosponsors believe that the State of South Dakota can require citizens to buy firearms? Of course not. But at the same time, we do not believe the federal government can order every citizen to buy health insurance,” he said

http://www.argusleader.com/article/20110...ns-buy-gun

Well, the difference is, if I don't buy insurance and then end up in the hospital with costs beyond my means, the hospital ends up passing the cost on to others. So I can see trying to make sure the patient is at least paying something. Only other choice is to tell the patient they're out of luck and they can go die at home. Don't know about whether Obamacare is constitutional though. They do require car insurance, why is that constitutional?

Car insurance is a state mandate not federal. You are not required by law to own a car therefore you are not required by law to have insurance. The state retains all powers not specifically given to the federal government.

Obama himself said you cannot "solve homelessness by mandating everybody to buy a house".

This was on the campaign for prez in 2008.

(02-01-2011 04:30 PM)bearcat65 Wrote:  Car insurance is a state mandate not federal. You are not required by law to own a car therefore you are not required by law to have insurance. The state retains all powers not specifically given to the federal government.

You're also only required by law to have liability insurance, which protects others people's property. If you borrow money the lender, not the gvmt requires you to have the other types of ins. If you don't chose to have a car, you are not required to
have automobile ins.

(02-01-2011 01:53 PM)Paul M Wrote:  

(02-01-2011 01:29 PM)smn1256 Wrote:  How about raising everyone's taxes and then giving them a free gun? Isn't that how the left does things?

Yep, tax you 4 grand and give you a hundred dollar .25 that they paid $400 for.

This of all the jobs created by the new agencies this will bring.