2nd Amendment protection added to Health Care ???

[DiamondDave]

Actually the intent is to force Republicans to vote for the Health Insurance Destruction Bill. Any Republican with the gall to vote no will be exposed as being Anti-gun rights and accused of wanting to circumvent the 2nd Amendment... in other words, the tactic is deceitful politics at its finest.

I pray the Republicans don't cave in that easily.

Immie

C'mon. Seriously. The gun lobby raises hell about this non-existent 'threat'... so it's addressed in the manager's amendment and now it's "deceit"? Considering this was included as a compromise with and for the Republicans, does that mean they want to out their own as anti-gun?


Why should he even bothered? Damned if he did, damned if he didn't.

Otherwise known as you know it is a bribe... knowing that healthcare is not supported and cannot stand on it's own...

 

[The Rabbi]

Actually the intent is to force Republicans to vote for the Health Insurance Destruction Bill. Any Republican with the gall to vote no will be exposed as being Anti-gun rights and accused of wanting to circumvent the 2nd Amendment... in other words, the tactic is deceitful politics at its finest.

I pray the Republicans don't cave in that easily.

Immie

C'mon. Seriously. The gun lobby raises hell about this non-existent 'threat'... so it's addressed in the manager's amendment and now it's "deceit"? Considering this was included as a compromise with and for the Republicans, does that mean they want to out their own as anti-gun?


Why should he even bothered? Damned if he did, damned if he didn't.

All of those htings were already illegal. The sole purpose was for political gain. The Democrats are the most cynical party in history.

 

[Immanuel]

Hail marry?

In any case:

http://www.politico.com/static/PPM145_chris.html




1. No database created by this bill can be used to collect or maintain records of legally owned/stored firearms or ammunition.

2. In addition, health insurance coverage cannot be denied, premiums cannot be increased, and discounts cannot be withheld or reduced based upon gun ownership and use.


I recall the right being pretty damned paranoid about this. So Reid puts this guarantee into the amendment to specifically address their concerns... and what happens? It makes them even more paranoid

Actually the intent is to force Republicans to vote for the Health Insurance Destruction Bill. Any Republican with the gall to vote no will be exposed as being Anti-gun rights and accused of wanting to circumvent the 2nd Amendment... in other words, the tactic is deceitful politics at its finest.

I pray the Republicans don't cave in that easily.

Immie

All those voting against it, who also support the 2nd amendment, have to do is publicly explain that the vote was against healthcare and expose the plot of the 'rider' as an attempt to buy opposition votes... and that if standing each on their own, they would vote for a protection of 2nd amendment rights and against the healthcare proposals

That is the way it should work, as that is clearly the case, but liberals will use this until they have a better scam to pull on Americans.

Come on... as I said, it was meant as a joke.

Immie

 

[Joe Steel]

O.K this is bizarre, the Democrats have allowed language in the Health Care bill to protect 2nd amendment rights. It seems to me the Democrats are really going for the hail marry on this one. The language added appears to protect people from being required to report firearm ownership and collections and ammo being stored. The only reason I can think of for this is to ensure that some left winger won't get a sneaky idea here soon to make it mandatory for you to list firearms owned in order to obtain medical services. Or to be required to list permits obtained on medical disclosures. I guess it's a good safety net but if we have some republicans (I'm assuming) having foresight to have this added, then what do they have in store for us in the near future. We better be watching like a hawk.

Is this really still our Country?: 2nd Amendment protection added to Health Care ???

This is virtually an admission of the the deceit behind the gun cult's worship of guns. Wellness programs are designed to sanction dangerous behaviors because they create risk which leads to medical expense. For instance, a wellness program might reduce benefits for smokers and obese persons in hopes of getting them to change their risky behaviors. Such programs might require beneficiaries to report their behavior and enter smoking cessation and weight loss programs. Heading-off the gun reporting requirement is an admission of the extreme danger guns create.

 

[DiamondDave]

And you are responsible for your own personal wellness and well being.. not anyone else...

Guns don't create danger.. guns just sit there inanimately

 

[Joe Steel]

And you are responsible for your own personal wellness and well being.. not anyone else...

Guns don't create danger.. guns just sit there inanimately

Wellness programs are a well-established feature of private health insurance. If you don't accept them, you can't support private health insurance.

Secondly, guns create great danger. Private health insurance could easily require you to report your guns as a requirement for coverage. If you oppose that requirement, you can't support private health insurance.

 

[DiamondDave]

And you are responsible for your own personal wellness and well being.. not anyone else...

Guns don't create danger.. guns just sit there inanimately

Wellness programs are a well-established feature of private health insurance. If you don't accept them, you can't support private health insurance.

Secondly, guns create great danger. Private health insurance could easily require you to report your guns as a requirement for coverage. If you oppose that requirement, you can't support private health insurance.

I don't support the government providing them or forcing a private company to provide them if they do not choose to do so.. and if a company does not provide them, and they go under because of people buying from other companies that do, SO BE IT... hence the belief in freedom over force

Guns create nothing... guns are objects.. we as people create the danger.. whether it be with a gun, a knife, a baseball bat, a snowball, or voting for a liberal

 

[Vast LWC]

[

It's not like the left wingers are not after all guns. Give them a second and gun grabbing will be the next big thing.

Now that is a vast generalization.

I love guns. The second amendment is a great piece of literature.

There's lots of Democrats that feel the same way I do.

 

[Joe Steel]

Wellness programs are a well-established feature of private health insurance. If you don't accept them, you can't support private health insurance.

Secondly, guns create great danger. Private health insurance could easily require you to report your guns as a requirement for coverage. If you oppose that requirement, you can't support private health insurance.

I don't support the government providing them or forcing a private company to provide them if they do not choose to do so.. and if a company does not provide them, and they go under because of people buying from other companies that do, SO BE IT... hence the belief in freedom over force

Guns create nothing... guns are objects.. we as people create the danger.. whether it be with a gun, a knife, a baseball bat, a snowball, or voting for a liberal

Guns are intended to make killing fast, safe and easy. That kind of utility facilitates their use without much forethought. A guy with a gripe can pull out his piece and unload on someone without a second thought and can expect to kill him. That's far less likely with a knife, a baseball bat or a snowball. If it weren't, no one would buy a gun. Insurance companies act prudently when they penalize gun owners.

 

[Vast LWC]

All those voting against it, who also support the 2nd amendment, have to do is publicly explain that the vote was against healthcare and expose the plot of the 'rider' as an attempt to buy opposition votes... and that if standing each on their own, they would vote for a protection of 2nd amendment rights and against the healthcare proposals

Since the Republicans are surely going to vote NO, no matter what the Democrats add to the bill, I'm sure Harry Reid realizes that there is no possible "Bribe" he can make.

Of course you folks would never even consider that there are DEMOCRATS that support the second amendment...

 

[DiamondDave]

All those voting against it, who also support the 2nd amendment, have to do is publicly explain that the vote was against healthcare and expose the plot of the 'rider' as an attempt to buy opposition votes... and that if standing each on their own, they would vote for a protection of 2nd amendment rights and against the healthcare proposals

Since the Republicans are surely going to vote NO, no matter what the Democrats add to the bill, I'm sure Harry Reid realizes that there is no possible "Bribe" he can make.

Of course you folks would never even consider that there are DEMOCRATS that support the second amendment...

Fewer than there are on the other side

So Reid CAN take the other route on this.. trying to use it as a means to have the DEM party attempt to label the REPs in question as being against the second amendment... which, as I stated, can be easily thwarted by explaining the whole situation to the public and exposing this stupid act by the DEMs for what it is

 

[Vast LWC]

All of those htings were already illegal. The sole purpose was for political gain. The Democrats are the most cynical party in history.

Pot, meet kettle. The fact that you think this to begin with makes you extroadinarily cynical.

Personally I believe that most people in both parties think they're doing the right thing. They disagree as to what will help the country the most, but they're trying to do right.

 

[DiamondDave]

Wellness programs are a well-established feature of private health insurance. If you don't accept them, you can't support private health insurance.

Secondly, guns create great danger. Private health insurance could easily require you to report your guns as a requirement for coverage. If you oppose that requirement, you can't support private health insurance.

I don't support the government providing them or forcing a private company to provide them if they do not choose to do so.. and if a company does not provide them, and they go under because of people buying from other companies that do, SO BE IT... hence the belief in freedom over force

Guns create nothing... guns are objects.. we as people create the danger.. whether it be with a gun, a knife, a baseball bat, a snowball, or voting for a liberal

Guns are intended to make killing fast, safe and easy. That kind of utility facilitates their use without much forethought. A guy with a gripe can pull out his piece and unload on someone without a second thought and can expect to kill him. That's far less likely with a knife, a baseball bat or a snowball. If it weren't, no one would buy a gun. Insurance companies act prudently when they penalize gun owners.

A sword is made to facilitate killing fast, safe, and easy... so is a pike.. so is a halberd... so can a morning star.. and it is no less likely that they will do so...

It is the ACTION that brings about the danger.... not the object...

Hence why insurance companies will raise life insurance rates for someone that skydives.. not for someone who own a parachute

 

[Vast LWC]

Fewer than there are on the other side

So Reid CAN take the other route on this.. trying to use it as a means to have the DEM party attempt to label the REPs in question as being against the second amendment... which, as I stated, can be easily thwarted by explaining the whole situation to the public and exposing this stupid act by the DEMs for what it is

See, but this is the classic "FoxNews-type" negative thinking going on here.

What if the Democrats didn't do this for political gain at all? What if they did it because it was the right thing to do?

Just sayin'....

 

[DiamondDave]

Fewer than there are on the other side

So Reid CAN take the other route on this.. trying to use it as a means to have the DEM party attempt to label the REPs in question as being against the second amendment... which, as I stated, can be easily thwarted by explaining the whole situation to the public and exposing this stupid act by the DEMs for what it is

See, but this is the classic "FoxNews-type" negative thinking going on here.

What if the Democrats didn't do this for political gain at all? What if they did it because it was the right thing to do?

Just sayin'....

Yeah.. OK...

If it were the right thing to do on either side.. it would and could stand alone... hence why BOTH sides have used this tactic in politics.. and I do not support it when EITHER side does it

 

[Immanuel]

All those voting against it, who also support the 2nd amendment, have to do is publicly explain that the vote was against healthcare and expose the plot of the 'rider' as an attempt to buy opposition votes... and that if standing each on their own, they would vote for a protection of 2nd amendment rights and against the healthcare proposals

Since the Republicans are surely going to vote NO, no matter what the Democrats add to the bill, I'm sure Harry Reid realizes that there is no possible "Bribe" he can make.

Of course you folks would never even consider that there are DEMOCRATS that support the second amendment...

It doesn't matter since there are no Democrats that have the balls to buck Nancy P or Harry R in this case.

Immie

 

[Immanuel]

All of those htings were already illegal. The sole purpose was for political gain. The Democrats are the most cynical party in history.

Personally I believe that most people in both parties think they're doing the right thing. They disagree as to what will help the country the most, but they're trying to do right.

This question is not to argue, but I want to know how can you believe that?

How can anyone believe that Congress is trying to do the right thing?

They are as corrupt as Mt. Everest is tall. I cannot believe that anyone thinks Congress really gives a shit what is right or wrong for America.

Yes... I am cynical.

Immie

 

[Joe Steel]

Guns are intended to make killing fast, safe and easy. That kind of utility facilitates their use without much forethought. A guy with a gripe can pull out his piece and unload on someone without a second thought and can expect to kill him. That's far less likely with a knife, a baseball bat or a snowball. If it weren't, no one would buy a gun. Insurance companies act prudently when they penalize gun owners.

A sword is made to facilitate killing fast, safe, and easy... so is a pike.. so is a halberd... so can a morning star.. and it is no less likely that they will do so...

It is the ACTION that brings about the danger.... not the object...

Hence why insurance companies will raise life insurance rates for someone that skydives.. not for someone who own a parachute

Danger is a function of the time elapsed between the onset of a threat and the realization of an injury. Because guns can create injury so quickly, the are far more dangerous than any other personal weapon. All the edged weapons you mentioned are no where near as dangerous because they are less-likely to produce life-threatening injuries as quickly as guns.

 

[The Rabbi]

Fewer than there are on the other side

So Reid CAN take the other route on this.. trying to use it as a means to have the DEM party attempt to label the REPs in question as being against the second amendment... which, as I stated, can be easily thwarted by explaining the whole situation to the public and exposing this stupid act by the DEMs for what it is

See, but this is the classic "FoxNews-type" negative thinking going on here.

What if the Democrats didn't do this for political gain at all? What if they did it because it was the right thing to do?

Just sayin'....

Since those things are ALREADY illegal including them could not have been simply "the right thing to do." There must be some other reason. And given the incredible politics the Dum leadership has been playing it is no stretch to say it is politically motivated.
Just sayin.

 

[DiamondDave]

Guns are intended to make killing fast, safe and easy. That kind of utility facilitates their use without much forethought. A guy with a gripe can pull out his piece and unload on someone without a second thought and can expect to kill him. That's far less likely with a knife, a baseball bat or a snowball. If it weren't, no one would buy a gun. Insurance companies act prudently when they penalize gun owners.

A sword is made to facilitate killing fast, safe, and easy... so is a pike.. so is a halberd... so can a morning star.. and it is no less likely that they will do so...

It is the ACTION that brings about the danger.... not the object...

Hence why insurance companies will raise life insurance rates for someone that skydives.. not for someone who own a parachute

Danger is a function of the time elapsed between the onset of a threat and the realization of an injury. Because guns can create injury so quickly, the are far more dangerous than any other personal weapon. All the edged weapons you mentioned are no where near as dangerous because they are less-likely to produce life-threatening injuries as quickly as guns.

So can a crossbow.. so can homemade rocketry.. so can so many little things..

the FACT is that the guns or weapons themselves cause NOTHING,... which you cannot get thru your thick skull

Again, you stupid fuck, it is the ACTION, not the object

Drop it while you are behind

Oh.. and btw.. less likely to produce life threatening injuries?? you are fucking laughable

The Morningstar | SPIKE