2nd Amendment protection added to Health Care ???

[The Rabbi]

A knife inflicts far deadlier wounds than a gun. This is simply a fact. Sorry.
Insread of focusing on the object, let's focus on the sick assholes who use guns to rape rob and murder other people.

 

[Emma]

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.

Why should he be bothered?

What ever it takes to defeat the "enemy".

The deceitful part is the using the language to claim that Senator "Soandso" is against gun rights because he voted against the Health Insurance Deformation Act of 2009. You see they will claim that anyone who votes against the destruction of the Health Insurance companies (which is what this bill is going to be when they reconcile the two plans and throw the public "Option" back in) only voted against it because they were opposed to guns.

The bastards in Washington are just plain deceitful in that manner.

Immie

And PS: for the most part that was meant as a joke.

I doubt that would fly considering it was a 380-page amendment and this part was probably the least of the issues addressed.

 

[Emma]

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.

They were? Health insurance companies were already forbidden from using gun ownership and use to deny coverage, reduce benefits or charge increased premiums? Would you please cite that Federal statute?

The sole purpose was for political gain. The Democrats are the most cynical party in history.

Again, this was a manager's amendment.

 

[Immanuel]

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.

Why should he be bothered?

What ever it takes to defeat the "enemy".

The deceitful part is the using the language to claim that Senator "Soandso" is against gun rights because he voted against the Health Insurance Deformation Act of 2009. You see they will claim that anyone who votes against the destruction of the Health Insurance companies (which is what this bill is going to be when they reconcile the two plans and throw the public "Option" back in) only voted against it because they were opposed to guns.

The bastards in Washington are just plain deceitful in that manner.

Immie

And PS: for the most part that was meant as a joke.

I doubt that would fly considering it was a 380-page amendment and this part was probably the least of the issues addressed.

I honestly don't think they care whether or not it would fly. They bad mouth each other at whatever opportunity they get.

Would it fly with most voters? No, probably not, but that would not stop them for trying it.

Immie

 

[Emma]

Why should he be bothered?

What ever it takes to defeat the "enemy".

The deceitful part is the using the language to claim that Senator "Soandso" is against gun rights because he voted against the Health Insurance Deformation Act of 2009. You see they will claim that anyone who votes against the destruction of the Health Insurance companies (which is what this bill is going to be when they reconcile the two plans and throw the public "Option" back in) only voted against it because they were opposed to guns.

The bastards in Washington are just plain deceitful in that manner.

Immie

And PS: for the most part that was meant as a joke.

I doubt that would fly considering it was a 380-page amendment and this part was probably the least of the issues addressed.

I honestly don't think they care whether or not it would fly. They bad mouth each other at whatever opportunity they get.

Would it fly with most voters? No, probably not, but that would not stop them for trying it.

Immie

Granted lol.

Merry Christmas!

 

[The Rabbi]

All of those htings were already illegal.

They were? Health insurance companies were already forbidden from using gun ownership and use to deny coverage, reduce benefits or charge increased premiums? Would you please cite that Federal statute?

The sole purpose was for political gain. The Democrats are the most cynical party in history.

Again, this was a manager's amendment.[/QUOTE]

Try reading ALLL of what you posted. Keeping a database of gun owners is already illegal. Gathering information like the bill lays out is already illegal. If it is, then why are they including it here, in a bill addressed to insurance reform?
The only answer possible is political calculation of the type described.
Yes, the Democratic Party is the party of politics over the national good, power over people.

 

[Emma]

Try reading ALLL of what you posted. Keeping a database of gun owners is already illegal.
Gathering information like the bill lays out is already illegal. If it is, then why are they including it here, in a bill addressed to insurance reform?

Hmm. Illegal for the government to keep a database of gun owners? How then are they able to trace ownership of guns used in crimes?

BTW, the database referred to in the bill doesn't exist yet.

So I ask again, do you have that statute that makes it illegal to keep a database of gun owners and for health insurance companies to use gun ownership and use to deny coverage, increase premiums and reduce benefits/discounts?

 

[The Rabbi]

Try reading ALLL of what you posted. Keeping a database of gun owners is already illegal.
Gathering information like the bill lays out is already illegal. If it is, then why are they including it here, in a bill addressed to insurance reform?

Hmm. Illegal for the government to keep a database of gun owners? How then are they able to trace ownership of guns used in crimes?

BTW, the database referred to in the bill doesn't exist yet.

So I ask again, do you have that statute that makes it illegal to keep a database of gun owners and for health insurance companies to use gun ownership and use to deny coverage, increase premiums and reduce benefits/discounts?

Wow, ignorant much?
They generally cannot trace ownership of guns i crimes. They can find out, usually, who the first owner was. After that it's a dead end. Unless the person bought multiple handguns, and there they do keep a database.
Go do a search of this. Congress has passed many laws preventing government from maintaining a databse of gun owners.

 

[Emma]

Try reading ALLL of what you posted. Keeping a database of gun owners is already illegal.
Gathering information like the bill lays out is already illegal. If it is, then why are they including it here, in a bill addressed to insurance reform?

Hmm. Illegal for the government to keep a database of gun owners? How then are they able to trace ownership of guns used in crimes?

BTW, the database referred to in the bill doesn't exist yet.

So I ask again, do you have that statute that makes it illegal to keep a database of gun owners and for health insurance companies to use gun ownership and use to deny coverage, increase premiums and reduce benefits/discounts?

Wow, ignorant much?
They generally cannot trace ownership of guns i crimes. They can find out, usually, who the first owner was.

Sounds like 'tracing ownership' to me. BTW, how is that done without a database?


Ooo! Wait! I know!

Unless the person bought multiple handguns, and there they do keep a database.

But that's illegal! lol

 

[The Rabbi]

Emma, I'm sorry. You're just too fucking stupid and arrogant for me to explain this. Go research firearms laws, especially the doings of the Reno Justice Dept. Then look at Multiple Handgun Sales Reports and NCIC and that should answer your questions.
Good luck.

 

[Harry Dresden]

the current gop is the cancer killing intelligent debate and progression of the country

They are certainly the most paranoid people on the face of the planet...

I think much of it has to do with ignorance & fear of the unknown. they are scared that their children might have to learn science and non-violent solutions to problems. they are also worried that their kids might reach the liberal internet and gain access to ideas not specifically sanctioned by the town pastor and fox news.

can you guys both get your heads in that ass at the same time?.....can we get a picture of this....i have never seen 2 going in at the same time......

 

[Harry Dresden]

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?

and what threat is that if i may ask?.......

 

[Meister]

Thank God, all my guns are untraceable. I don't want any g-man come ask for the weapons. having said that it's a cheap political stunt to have anything like what they put in the bill regarding the second amendment

 

[Harry Dresden]

the current gop is the cancer killing intelligent debate and progression of the country

the current Political parties are the cancer killing intelligent debate and progression of the country. To think that either side is better or worse is to be ignorant of past political history. Partisan politics is the real cancer on this country though it keeps the politicians safe and free to go on with their power grab.

a few around here will tell you NOT my party......just the other ones...

 

[Harry Dresden]

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.

...Guns dont create danger dipshit....the person in possession of it does ......

 

[Meister]

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.

...Guns dont create danger dipshit....the person in possession of it does ......

Yep, a gun handled in the proper way is not an extreme danger. Maybe if joe had one it could be considered a dangerous weapon.....he might be projecting more about himself than he wanted to.

 

[Harry Dresden]

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'....

97% of politicians today dont do nothing unless there is some gain for them or their dam party.....the right thing to do....my ass....

 

[Meister]

97% of politicians today dont do nothing unless there is some gain for them or their dam party.....the right thing to do....my ass....

Wow....you mean like the healthcare bill?

 

[Harry Dresden]

97% of politicians today dont do nothing unless there is some gain for them or their dam party.....the right thing to do....my ass....

Wow....you mean like the healthcare bill?

ok....lets go with that....

 

[Emma]

Emma, I'm sorry. You're just too fucking stupid and arrogant for me to explain this. Go research firearms laws, especially the doings of the Reno Justice Dept. Then look at Multiple Handgun Sales Reports and NCIC and that should answer your questions.
Good luck.

All I requested was a citation from you showing the Federal statute that prohibits insurance companies from denying coverage, increasing premiums and reducing benefits/discounts to those who own/use guns, since you claim that was already illegal prior to this amendment. If you're unable to provide that, fine.