NLXSK1
Well-Known Member
*Learn*
*to*
Obama using kids as human shields...
- Thread starter NLXSK1
- Start date
*to*
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
^^^fail^^^
noxiously
Well-Known Member
We can see you haven't the ability to think for yourself. I'm sure the NRA is very pleased at the work they are doing with their propaganda department.
Sure England might be small, but what is their populatioin, and compare their shootings per capita vs. our shootings per capita and you will find your answer, that is if you are capable of doing simple math. Just because a "comedian", reports something, doesn't always mean its a joke. If you would like, go to the ATF website and you will see what I am talking about, every single thing I mentioned about the ATF is completely true as it's on their own website. They have videos that describe rules and regulations in simple terms for those that can't read higher than a third grade level.
As for seeing fully auto weapons outside of military hands, yes, I have seen it alot. Sure, not in the suburbs, but in the hands of those people call criminals/thugs/low lifes etc. I remember walking into a "trap house" (if you don't know what that is then google it), and seeing several full auto rifles right in the front room ready to go. I don't involve myself with that crowd anymore because it brings nothing productive to ones life.
I had to laugh when you brought up Somalia. The funniest part is that you were completely serious about that. How can you compare Somalia to America? I really do wish you would educate yourself a little more on these things and atleast use a little bit of common sense. Seriously, take your head out of your ass. Yea...just because it can happen in a THIRD WORLD COUNTRY, that has little to no resources to support it's own people, it surely can happen here in America.
Elementary vs. Sophmoric = stupid argument
Tell me one incident where you would actually need a 30 round magazine? You can't. That's because outside of military actions there is no real need to have that many rounds. Seriously, use some common sense. If one or two people come busting down your door to steal your t.v., computer, or whatever else they came to steal, hears a few rounds being let off do you really think they are going to stick around to fight back. No. It's that simple. Even though they are "criminals", they still value their own life to an extent. No one wants to be the guy who dies trying to steal a t.v. The only reason they are going to stick around and fight back is if they are there to kill you in the first place, and even with that they aren't going to stick around that long because there is a thing called the "People call 911", and I'm sure they want to be there long enough for the cops to show up.
O.K., lets say the military does come to your front door ready to take your guns. What are you going to do, fight them? You're an idiot. You still wouldn't even need a 30 round clip because by the time you get through your first 5 shots I'm pretty sure you would be dead. You wouldn't stand long enough to use all 30 shots in that one magazine. You are just a joke to yourself and society kid. To think that we still have idiots out there like you is the scariest part of it all because people like you don't have the ability to advance their own thought process on anything. I bet if you didn't hear it from your Ma and Pa it aint true huh.
noxiously
Well-Known Member
So you are saying that in no way at all that preventative care can't and won't save money in the long run? Have you ever worked in the healthcare field? I don't even know why I asked that because it's obvious you haven't.
Example: Patient A goes to the Dr. for a regular check up one day. The Dr. draws blood, listens to your heart, lungs, etc., you know, the regular check up stuff. The Dr. comes back to your room and points out that your cholesterol is really high, that you have high blood pressure, and that you are at risk for heart failure. So instead of doing some preventative medicine the Dr. just sends Patient A on his/her way. A few years later Patient A dies from a heart attack. Hell, lets say they didn't die from the heart attack, not everyone does. How much do you think it's going to cost Patient A for those Dr. bills. A guy I worked with had a heart attack at work. After his week long stay in the hospital he was finally released. A few months passed and he came back to work. He showed me the cost of being treated for having a heart attack and good god it was ridiculous. No one can argue with the cost of health care is just out of control.
Patient B goes to the Dr. for a routine check up. The Dr. comes back and tells Patient B that their cholesterol and blood pressure is a little high and the Dr. starts Patient B on some preventative medicine. At that point the meds will help lower the patients cholesterol and blood pressure down to a safer level. That is, if the patient starts eating right, exercises, etc. Being able to exercise is free, all you have to do is walk/jog/run around the block a few times. They may spend a little more money on purchasing healthier foods (which is another topic I would love to talk about - cost of healthy foods vs. un-healthy foods and how the government doesn't give subsidies to health foods). Anyway, with just a few life changes, healthier habits, and some cheaper meds to help keep cholesterol and blood pressure down will never add up to the cost of being treated for just one heart attack.
I've been in the healthcare industry since 1996 and have seen a ton of people pass away for many different reasons. Most people could live a healthier/happier life if all they did was make a few simple changes to their regular daily routine. Preventative care is by far cheaper, and more effective in combating diseases.
I see your argument though. Sure, instead of a person dying at 62 vs. 82 you might spend less in Dr. bills and medicines, but that's only because they didn't take proper care of themselves in the first place and preventative medicine teaches people how to take care of themselves in a healthier way in order to prevent the need of higher priced medicines and medical exams. But are you saying that we should just let people die? Isn't that what people was so up in arms about when "Obamacare" came out. Wasn't people trying to say that "The government would be making medical decisions for people and letting them die" "Death sentence", so on and so on. I'm sure you remember all those remarks that were being made, and it sounds exactly like the opposite of what you are saying now. Don't pay to help keep someone alive, just let them die because it may cost me a few extra dollars a year.
Come one guy, just give it up. Arguing with something that is proven to be true over and over again is just moronic. Doctors, nurses, dietitians, nurse practitioners, nurse aides, etc. will all tell you that preventative medicine is a far better option than just treating someone for a disease they have that could have been prevented in the first place.
Diabetes is another great example as well. My mom has diabetes, no one else in the family has ever had it. So it wasn't inherited. Hers was caused by an unhealthy lifestyle, which could have been prevented by cheaper alternative measures. Now she has to pay an arm and a leg for her insulin every month. Not counting the lancets and those test strips.
Sheesh!!!
NLXSK1
Well-Known Member
I am simply pointing out the fallacy that preventative care does not cut costs.
I am not advocating letting people die, I am saying that we have to be honest with ourselves about healthcare costs since the government has decided (unconstitutionally IMO) to set up a massive entitlement program that somehow is supposed to save people money despite all of the facts indicating otherwise...
Preventative medicine has yet to allow people to live forever... Ultimately they are going to get sick and die and those are real costs. If they live 20+ years from 60 to 80 they will have much higher medical bills on average due to the preventative care.
I am not advocating letting people die, I am saying that we have to be honest with ourselves about healthcare costs since the government has decided (unconstitutionally IMO) to set up a massive entitlement program that somehow is supposed to save people money despite all of the facts indicating otherwise...
noxiously
Well-Known Member
The fact of the matter is that preventative health care measures do save money in the long run. It's not going to be perfect at first, just like everything else thats in the beginning stages, but any health care provider will tell you this. What the problem is, is that big insurance companies don't want this because they know it will make them lose money. They don't want preventative health care because they make more money off people being sick. Sure, Obamacare isn't perfect, but we have to start somewhere. Don't you think it's messed up that millions of people across America pay into health insurance but rarely ever use it, and when they do the insurance companies drop you because what you have is listed as a "Pre-existing Condition".
What is so wrong with a universal health care system anyway. If it was sooo bad don't you think all those countries who are ranked higher in health care services who have a universal health care system, would have dropped it and adopted our system? Check out where the United States in ranked in the World Health Organizations list of health care. We are waaaaaaaay down the list. Or is that just one big conspiracy because the WHO are nothing more than socialist liberals trying to take over?
Come on now guy...be real about this...the only reason people don't want a universal health system is because they are too selfish and greedy to help others. I wouldn't care if I had to pay a flat tax of 5% to 7% in it meant everyone in America would be covered by health insurance, wouldn't have to pay co-pays, or even have to pay to get their medicines. Sure, we would have people who don't work at all and not pay taxes and get free health care, but that's already happening anyway with Caresource, Molina, through the state level. That part is never going away so we can't dwell on it, we can only make it better.
NLXSK1
Well-Known Member
Obama stated that Obamacare would LOWER premiums for the average family by 2,500 dollars. Since that time the premiums for the average family have RISEN by 2,500 dollars and are projected to rise by another 2,500 dollars within the next year or two.
Why do you blindly accept what the politicians say as gospel when reality shows something completely different?
NLXSK1
Well-Known Member
How much do you make per year? Lets say you are some rich guy and make 100,000 dollars per year. Lets say they implemented this flat tax... 5,000 per year times 40 years = 200,000 dollars. Now, look at the bill your friend got charged for a heart attack... Was it over 200,000 dollars? Your lifetime contributions to the system wouldnt even pay for your friends heart attack. That is assuming you make 100K per year.
The problem is the costs are higher than the taxpayers can afford.
You call people selfish for wanting to keep more of what they earn to take care of their direct family. I call you selfish for confiscating money from one person to give it to another person. You didnt earn the money yet you claim some sort of right to it... You are the selfish one.
The math doesnt work. Society cannot afford universal healthcare. Not at 5%, not at 20%..... Yet somehow you are willing to steal the bread off of one person's table in the name of compassion...
s
noxiously
Well-Known Member
I don't blindly follow what they say. I can't stand half of the politicians in D.C. and on a local level because they are full of shit and only do things that line their own greedy pockets. As I said, Obamacare isn't perfect, and you won't see the results of the savings yet because it hasn't been instated fully across the board. The reason why your premiums are going up is because the health insurance companies are scared that they are going to lose money once it does take affect and want to try and gouge people now as much as they possibly can.
NLXSK1
Well-Known Member
The reason why your health care premiums are going up is because Obamacare mandates many services be required to be included in every policy. Those mandates cost money....
noxiously
Well-Known Member
Society can afford universal healthcare and it's been proven for a longer period than our current health care model we have in place now. If it couldn't work it wouldn't have been working for all these other nations that has been doing it for close to 100 years now with no ill effect...no pun intended.
Well I can only say I wish I made 100,000 a year. So, it wouldn't be 5000 a year for me, or the majority of Americans. I don't know about you, but my health care insurance costs me $79 every two weeks. That equates to $2,054 a year. Now, my friend who had the heart attack was on his wifes plan, shes a school teacher, and they get better rates cause it's through the government. Atleast that's how it is in the state I live in. Also, my sister works for the state at a Mental Illness institute. Her "Family Plan" insurance is cheaper than my individual insurance, and it's provided by the government and she has Blue Cross / Blue Shield.
But anyway, back to the topic, my friends medical bill for that heart attack was right around $100,000. That was for all the tests they performed, the surgeries he had, the pace maker, the stint they put in his artery, and whatever else they did, and his weeks stay at the hospital. Now after getting out of the hospital they suggested he go to Cardiac Rehab for three months. While at Cardiac Rehab he routinely has stress tests done, which if you've ever had one done you will know they aren't cheap. So yea, to answer your question, no, I myself could never pay for his one time heart attack with a flat tax. But..when you have MILLIONS of people paying into the same plan you will be able to afford it. Why...Not everyone has a heart attack. Not everyone goes in for surgery. Not everyone goes to see their doctor on a routine basis.
Now assuming you're a man, not being funny, but, you know how us men are. We, in general, hate to go to the Dr. for anything, unless it is something very serious. So, all those years of not going to the Dr. or using your insurance is where you make up the difference. That applies for alot of people in fact. There are millions of women who barely have regular check ups. So it's not like all these people are going in for MRI's, CT Scans, PET Scans, or having heart attacks, strokes, etc. etc. so for those who are healthy it pays off. That is one incentive for people to start eating right and exercise to stay healthy. And yea, just because you eat right and exercise doesn't mean you won't get sick and die, but it does help tremendously and that all comes back to preventative health care measures that these Universal Health systems have in place. Help people stay healthy and you won't have to pay out for expensive medical bills.
Again, it's been working for years now in other countries, if it doesn't work then why do they still keep doing it? Hell, most countries copy off us anyway, so why wouldn't they copy that if it saves so much more money? The answer, it doesn't save money to have our current health care system in place, all it does it gives insurance companies the right to keep charging excessive amounts for shitty coverage.
noxiously
Well-Known Member
And those Mandates are not set in place yet, so your argument is invalid. The only way you can make a case for Obamacare costing people more money is waiting atleast 5 years to see if there was an impact. Economist will even tell you that it's too hard to tell what it's going to do because no one really knows yet. Yes, it could very well make our premiums go up, but that's because private insurance companies have the right to keep charging larger and larger amounts for their premiums that doesn't cover hardly anything.
It could very well make our costs go down, but until we wait it out and see what it does after a few years you won't know.
NLXSK1
Well-Known Member
You dont have to go to a doctor on a routine basis. You just admitted yourself that you wouldnt contribute enough to cover your friends healthcare.
If the government has to handle the health costs of EVERYONE and you cant afford to pay for even 1 person, who picks up the slack?
And again, you justify robbing peter to pay paul simply on the basis that *peter can afford it* which is simply morally wrong.
We are not affording nor paying for our healthcare right now. We are borrowing 46 cents of every dollar. Your taxes would have to go up by 50% to cover the current overspending.
Most places that have european healthcare are on the verge of bankruptcy and are moving toward private care solutions to address the funding issues. We are following the same doomed curve of them even though we know what lies at the end of the path...
You do not have a right to health care. Furthermore, you do not have a right to confiscate the labor and income of another individual to cover your healthcare costs simply because you need it.
NLXSK1
Well-Known Member
I know that healthcare costs in many states are raising by double digits this year alone.
I know that the average health care costs have risen by 2,500 dollars even though I was told they would decrease.
I know that my healthcare is going through the roof.
I know that mandates cost money and the insurance companies cannot simply print cash to cover their debts. They need to take in more money than they pay out and that is the reason that rates are going up now based on future estimated payouts for all the new mandates placed on insurance via Obamacare. (note, this is forcing less choice in healthcare policies, not more choice).
If you understood that the whole Obamacare package was designed to force private companies out of the market and impose a government single option solution it would make much more sense than it does when they try to tell me I can keep my doctor (lost him 2 years ago) and that my premiums will be lower, and that I will have more choices, not less choices.
After a few years I might not be able to pay for my private insurance anymore...
cannabineer
Ursus marijanus
but this is the classic cherrypicked statistic of the antis. Confiscate guns, and overall shootings will go down. Nobody is contesting that. However crime, violent crime surges. Trading shootings for stabbings and clubbings is not socially progressive.
Of course I can, But it will fail your own intellectual trap, since it would not pertain to very recent or current conditions. That said, you cannot guarantee us in this country a freedom from strife.
It is precisely those military/paramilitary or even quasimilitary situations that I contend the framers foresaw when including the amendment in the first place. Remember Germany. And that is why I invoked an intellectual trap: the confidence that the good times will roll on.
It was never the police's job to prevent crime or be first responders, but to solve crime and apprehend criminals. Let's be very careful of extending total trust to an organization that simply cannot be up to the job of total local security.
Some folks may just indeed fight. If enough of them do it, are they criminals or insurgents? Do you recognize that there is a moral difference between the two?
noxiously
Well-Known Member
I don't know where you live and that's none of my business, considering what site we are on lol. But for me, my insurance rates have been going up too, but that has been happening every years since the first day I started working. Inflation will cause prices of everything to rise. You mentioned that the rates are going up based off of future estimated payouts. Well, who is estimating these payouts and telling everyone that is why they are raising their rates? The insurance companies, and I'm sure they have our best interests in mind and it has nothing to do with making more money. I'm sure insurance companies aren't out to make tons of money and that has nothing to do with the rates going up. How many insurance companies do you know of that is non-profit and only wants to bust even for the year?
NLXSK1
Well-Known Member
Suddenly profit is a bad thing?
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
let me get this straight: you hate tax breaks, but you like it when people profit off your health?
tell me how well the profit motive works in other countries that cover all their citizens for less than we pay to just cover some of ours.
noxiously
Well-Known Member
Cherry picking info? How can you say it's cherry picking info if its actual facts? I'm not leaving out valid information to make a point. Per capita..countries that have gun bans have a lower gun crime rate vs. Americas gun crime rate per capita...and that's obvious. Do they have higher rates of stabbings and clubbings? I have no idea, but I'm sure we can find that information out somewhere. With out looking up that info I'll give you that one. They have higher stabbings and clubbings. But how many murders per capita do these countries have? If it's lower then our murder rate per capita then whats the problem? Are those people dying from these stabbings and clubbings? lol I can't help but laugh about this one, not poking fun at you or anything, I'm not even being sarcastic, I just haven't heard the phrase "clubbing" in a long time and it caught me off guard. I pictured some Irish dude standing outside a "pub" with a club just wacking the shit out of people.
O.K., back to reality. Lets say the rate of stabbings and clubbings go up, which I'm sure they would because they wouldn't have much of a choice of weapons if guns were out of the equation. But I'd much rather take my chances with a knife or club than go up against a mad man with a fully automatic assault rifle with 100 round magazine any day. I'm sure there aren't mass clubbings going on in schools or theatres that are killing 20+ people at a time. Isn't that the point, to stop all the mass killings that's going on. Sure, we may end up with a few more people that have staples in their head and sliced up torsos, but they have a better chance of survival. I don't know, maybe it's just me, I just don't see a need for having assault rifles and 100 round mags going around so easily.
Sure criminals won't care about these new regulations, just like they never cared about the ones we already have. But like I keep saying, eventually it would pay off and we would see less mass shootings. Eventually people would get too scared to illegally sell these weapons to crazy people because the penalty would be so harsh it wouldn't be worth the $300 for an uzi with scratched off serial numbers.