Why we needed the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act

Is such a perfect solution, nope. But the NRA ideology won't allow for any discussion on this idea or any idea to limit guns in our society.

It's not only not a perfect solution, it's an INSANE solution. Your ideas only limit guns in the hands of law abiding citizens. Criminals and crazies don't care about your regulations. Therefore, your rules have the actual consequence of putting good people at a disadvantage when facing armed criminals! That's insane.

It's an idea...

A really bad idea.

However, it does not limit the law abiding citizens anymore than a driver's license limits ones operation of a motor vehicle. It would make those who refused to obtain the license a criminal and culpable for punishments. If you get caught driving without a license you get a ticket, if you get caught with a gun you get a ticket. Big deal. Both require tests to make sure the licensee has the ability to operate the car/gun safely and within the law

Fail. One does NOT have to obtain a driver's license to own a vehicle. One does NOT have to have a driver's license to operate a vehicle on their own property. Driver's licenses are issued by STATE governments (not the Feds) for operating on public roads. Similarly, most states require a license to carry a concealed firearm in public.

By your own analogy:
The Federal government should have NO place in licensing firearms
State governments should not be involved in the purchase of a firearm
State governments have no place regulating firearm ownership on someone's own property
But states are free to regulated firearms carried in public

Sounds good to me.
 
It's not only not a perfect solution, it's an INSANE solution. Your ideas only limit guns in the hands of law abiding citizens. Criminals and crazies don't care about your regulations. Therefore, your rules have the actual consequence of putting good people at a disadvantage when facing armed criminals! That's insane.

It's an idea...

A really bad idea.

However, it does not limit the law abiding citizens anymore than a driver's license limits ones operation of a motor vehicle. It would make those who refused to obtain the license a criminal and culpable for punishments. If you get caught driving without a license you get a ticket, if you get caught with a gun you get a ticket. Big deal. Both require tests to make sure the licensee has the ability to operate the car/gun safely and within the law

Fail. One does NOT have to obtain a driver's license to own a vehicle. One does NOT have to have a driver's license to operate a vehicle on their own property. Driver's licenses are issued by STATE governments (not the Feds) for operating on public roads. Similarly, most states require a license to carry a concealed firearm in public.

Sucks to be Wry Catcher right now :lol:
 
It's not only not a perfect solution, it's an INSANE solution. Your ideas only limit guns in the hands of law abiding citizens. Criminals and crazies don't care about your regulations. Therefore, your rules have the actual consequence of putting good people at a disadvantage when facing armed criminals! That's insane.

It's an idea...

A really bad idea.

However, it does not limit the law abiding citizens anymore than a driver's license limits ones operation of a motor vehicle. It would make those who refused to obtain the license a criminal and culpable for punishments. If you get caught driving without a license you get a ticket, if you get caught with a gun you get a ticket. Big deal. Both require tests to make sure the licensee has the ability to operate the car/gun safely and within the law

Fail. One does NOT have to obtain a driver's license to own a vehicle Correct, I wrote to operate a motor vehicle. Obviously on public roads One does NOT have to have a driver's license to operate a vehicle on their own property. Driver's licenses are issued by STATE governments (not the Feds) for operating on public roads. Similarly, most states require a license to carry a concealed firearm in public.

In prior posts I suggested licenses be issued by the several states or not, being the choice of the state.

By your own analogy:
The Federal government should have NO place in licensing firearms - agree

State governments should not be involved in the purchase of a firearm - Disagree

State governments have no place regulating firearm ownership on someone's own property - well, I agree with some reservations on the type of gun.

But states are free to regulated firearms carried in public - Agree.

Sounds good to me.

See, with good will and an open mind the issue of gun control can be discussed without name calling.

The caveats I would add are 1) the state require all sales of firearms be between two licensed persons, any sale to an unlicensed person will be cause to revoke the license for life of both the purchaser and the seller; 2) The types of firearms in the home must be a) legally purchased; b) legally owned by the licensee; and c) fully insured for liability for its misuse.

Cities and counties should also be able to regulate open carry laws.
 
It's an idea...

A really bad idea.

However, it does not limit the law abiding citizens anymore than a driver's license limits ones operation of a motor vehicle. It would make those who refused to obtain the license a criminal and culpable for punishments. If you get caught driving without a license you get a ticket, if you get caught with a gun you get a ticket. Big deal. Both require tests to make sure the licensee has the ability to operate the car/gun safely and within the law

Fail. One does NOT have to obtain a driver's license to own a vehicle Correct, I wrote to operate a motor vehicle. Obviously on public roads One does NOT have to have a driver's license to operate a vehicle on their own property. Driver's licenses are issued by STATE governments (not the Feds) for operating on public roads. Similarly, most states require a license to carry a concealed firearm in public.

In prior posts I suggested licenses be issued by the several states or not, being the choice of the state.

By your own analogy:
The Federal government should have NO place in licensing firearms - agree

State governments should not be involved in the purchase of a firearm - Disagree

State governments have no place regulating firearm ownership on someone's own property - well, I agree with some reservations on the type of gun.

But states are free to regulated firearms carried in public - Agree.

Sounds good to me.

See, with good will and an open mind the issue of gun control can be discussed without name calling.

The caveats I would add are 1) the state require all sales of firearms be between two licensed persons, any sale to an unlicensed person will be cause to revoke the license for life of both the purchaser and the seller; 2) The types of firearms in the home must be a) legally purchased; b) legally owned by the licensee; and c) fully insured for liability for its misuse.

Cities and counties should also be able to regulate open carry laws.

You corrected yourself about the public roads point, but much of the gun debate involves people simply being able to own and keep guns in their own home and use on their own property. You don't need a license to buy a car and use it on your property.

It was a bad analogy on your part.
 
It's an idea...

A really bad idea.

However, it does not limit the law abiding citizens anymore than a driver's license limits ones operation of a motor vehicle. It would make those who refused to obtain the license a criminal and culpable for punishments. If you get caught driving without a license you get a ticket, if you get caught with a gun you get a ticket. Big deal. Both require tests to make sure the licensee has the ability to operate the car/gun safely and within the law

Fail. One does NOT have to obtain a driver's license to own a vehicle Correct, I wrote to operate a motor vehicle. Obviously on public roads One does NOT have to have a driver's license to operate a vehicle on their own property. Driver's licenses are issued by STATE governments (not the Feds) for operating on public roads. Similarly, most states require a license to carry a concealed firearm in public.

In prior posts I suggested licenses be issued by the several states or not, being the choice of the state.

By your own analogy:
The Federal government should have NO place in licensing firearms - agree

State governments should not be involved in the purchase of a firearm - Disagree

State governments have no place regulating firearm ownership on someone's own property - well, I agree with some reservations on the type of gun.

But states are free to regulated firearms carried in public - Agree.

Sounds good to me.

See, with good will and an open mind the issue of gun control can be discussed without name calling.

The caveats I would add are 1) the state require all sales of firearms be between two licensed persons, any sale to an unlicensed person will be cause to revoke the license for life of both the purchaser and the seller; 2) The types of firearms in the home must be a) legally purchased; b) legally owned by the licensee; and c) fully insured for liability for its misuse.

Cities and counties should also be able to regulate open carry laws.

The irony is that the guns rights cause is suffering from its own success. If they hadn't been able to push the second amendment to the point where local communities can't implement common-sense weapons ordinances, we might not be facing an effort to give the federal government the power to start rounding up our guns.
 
Last edited:
It's an idea...

A really bad idea.

However, it does not limit the law abiding citizens anymore than a driver's license limits ones operation of a motor vehicle. It would make those who refused to obtain the license a criminal and culpable for punishments. If you get caught driving without a license you get a ticket, if you get caught with a gun you get a ticket. Big deal. Both require tests to make sure the licensee has the ability to operate the car/gun safely and within the law

Fail. One does NOT have to obtain a driver's license to own a vehicle Correct, I wrote to operate a motor vehicle. Obviously on public roads One does NOT have to have a driver's license to operate a vehicle on their own property. Driver's licenses are issued by STATE governments (not the Feds) for operating on public roads. Similarly, most states require a license to carry a concealed firearm in public.

In prior posts I suggested licenses be issued by the several states or not, being the choice of the state.

By your own analogy:
The Federal government should have NO place in licensing firearms - agree

State governments should not be involved in the purchase of a firearm - Disagree

State governments have no place regulating firearm ownership on someone's own property - well, I agree with some reservations on the type of gun.

But states are free to regulated firearms carried in public - Agree.

Sounds good to me.

See, with good will and an open mind the issue of gun control can be discussed without name calling.

The caveats I would add are 1) the state require all sales of firearms be between two licensed persons, any sale to an unlicensed person will be cause to revoke the license for life of both the purchaser and the seller; 2) The types of firearms in the home must be a) legally purchased; b) legally owned by the licensee; and c) fully insured for liability for its misuse.

Cities and counties should also be able to regulate open carry laws.

No name calling, but your suggestions make zero sense. You continue to overlook that your proposed regulations would restrict access to firearms only by law abiding citizens. Again, criminals and crazies don't care about your regulations. Therefore, your rules have the actual consequence of putting good people at a disadvantage when facing armed criminals.

Why would you want to do that?!
 
A really bad idea.



Fail. One does NOT have to obtain a driver's license to own a vehicle Correct, I wrote to operate a motor vehicle. Obviously on public roads One does NOT have to have a driver's license to operate a vehicle on their own property. Driver's licenses are issued by STATE governments (not the Feds) for operating on public roads. Similarly, most states require a license to carry a concealed firearm in public.

In prior posts I suggested licenses be issued by the several states or not, being the choice of the state.

By your own analogy:
The Federal government should have NO place in licensing firearms - agree

State governments should not be involved in the purchase of a firearm - Disagree

State governments have no place regulating firearm ownership on someone's own property - well, I agree with some reservations on the type of gun.

But states are free to regulated firearms carried in public - Agree.

Sounds good to me.

See, with good will and an open mind the issue of gun control can be discussed without name calling.

The caveats I would add are 1) the state require all sales of firearms be between two licensed persons, any sale to an unlicensed person will be cause to revoke the license for life of both the purchaser and the seller; 2) The types of firearms in the home must be a) legally purchased; b) legally owned by the licensee; and c) fully insured for liability for its misuse.

Cities and counties should also be able to regulate open carry laws.

You corrected yourself about the public roads point, but much of the gun debate involves people simply being able to own and keep guns in their own home and use on their own property. You don't need a license to buy a car and use it on your property.

It was a bad analogy on your part.

If you insist, I clarified rather than corrected, but I'll accept the criticism without too much fuss.
 
Why else would you want to push for a reaction to a problem that doesn't solve the problem?
You painted yourself into this corner, just saying.
 
Gun violence makes up such a small percentage of usage of guns in the first place. Limiting the overwhelming majority of law abiding owners their freedom to own and carry only empowers and enables the criminal minority.

You've solved nothing, and in fact created a NEW problem.
 
How we went from the Obama Tax being the gift that we needed to reduce healthcare costs, over to what measures will work best in gun control, is absolutely beyond me.

I guess just keep switching fields until you can find one that you can score a goal on.
 
Wow, all by myself I created a new problem and didn't solve a problem, man, I'm sure powerful.

Thanks to both of you for your intelligent response to a topic which is one of the top current event issues. You both contribute so much to problem solving it's a shame you both spend so much time posting here and are not leaders in your local community.
 
National health care was what I was getting at. Medicare and Medicaid are not universal, nor were any of the other piece meal efforts.

See: A Brief History: Universal Health Care Efforts in the US | Physicians for a National Health Program

But you started this thread to tell us why we need Obamacare, not national health care.

But, but, but ... I have never waivered in my opinion that we need universal preventative health care in our country. Our system of law making is built on compromise - or used to be until the radical right came upon the scene. Though I have never advocated for socialized medicine. I've supported a hybrid where we have public/private participation (which in fact we have a limited form today in our county hospital system) and every citizen is provided low or no cost preventative health care from cradle to grave.

The problem is the same it has always been, the conservatives are opposed to any soluton, no matter how pragmatic or humanistic out of fear and greed. The hoi polloi who considered themselves conservatives - many of whom post on the message board - are totally brainwashed by the hate and fear broadcast by demagogues and charlatans on the far far right. The privlidged class must defend the status quo and have for all of history, via bribery they have been able to do so on the issue of health care in America for over a century.

It's funny (as in odd) that your side argues about personal responsibility and 'welfare queens' yet opposed holding those who can afford health insurance from the requirement to buy it. You argue that competition is good but not when a government agency enters the market. If mandatory preventative health care existed the costs to insurance companies would most likely fall, for early detection of many serious and costly illnesses can be cured or controlled before they become advance and require more intensive and expensive interventions.

No buts at all, the title of this thread is "Why we needed the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act." Now you want to claim your position never changed, even though it obviously has.
 
But you started this thread to tell us why we need Obamacare, not national health care.

But, but, but ... I have never waivered in my opinion that we need universal preventative health care in our country. Our system of law making is built on compromise - or used to be until the radical right came upon the scene. Though I have never advocated for socialized medicine. I've supported a hybrid where we have public/private participation (which in fact we have a limited form today in our county hospital system) and every citizen is provided low or no cost preventative health care from cradle to grave.

The problem is the same it has always been, the conservatives are opposed to any soluton, no matter how pragmatic or humanistic out of fear and greed. The hoi polloi who considered themselves conservatives - many of whom post on the message board - are totally brainwashed by the hate and fear broadcast by demagogues and charlatans on the far far right. The privlidged class must defend the status quo and have for all of history, via bribery they have been able to do so on the issue of health care in America for over a century.

It's funny (as in odd) that your side argues about personal responsibility and 'welfare queens' yet opposed holding those who can afford health insurance from the requirement to buy it. You argue that competition is good but not when a government agency enters the market. If mandatory preventative health care existed the costs to insurance companies would most likely fall, for early detection of many serious and costly illnesses can be cured or controlled before they become advance and require more intensive and expensive interventions.

No buts at all, the title of this thread is "Why we needed the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act." Now you want to claim your position never changed, even though it obviously has.

Whatever. Obviously you like the other two have no ideas of your own.
 
Last edited:
Why else would you want to push for a reaction to a problem that doesn't solve the problem?

It depends on the problem we think we're solving. In my view, there are two distinct problems we're trying to solve with health care reform. But they're different problems and require different solutions.

First is the question of what to do about people who can't afford basic health care. This is a safety net issue.

Second is the broken health care market. This is an issue of the accumulated 'unintended consequences' of decades of ill-considered regulation. We are over-insured and over-regulated, and before we pile on with more of the same we need to sort through and correct the polices that have created the problem in the first place.

The thing is, if we solved the second problem, the first would be much easier to deal with. If we get the market pressures back in balance and bring health care prices back toward something reasonable, health care will be more affordable and less people will require the assistance of a safety net.

But our leaders have decided to go in exactly the opposite direction. They have instead focused on trying to ensure that everyone's health care is paid for as the first, and virtually only, priority. By doing that, and failing to seriously address the continued price inflation, we're setting ourselves up for certain failure. They seem to be working on the opposite assumption - that making health care a communal obligation, will minimize the health care inflation. And it won't. It might minimize the effects of that inflation on individuals, but if health care prices continue to rise, they will bankrupt the entire nation as surely as the current morass is bankrupting individuals.
 
Last edited:
More government regulation always makes thing cheaper and more accessible.
Lack of regulation is why the US has the highest priced healthcare in the world. You'd think it would be the best, but it's #37.
If it's one thing that those buttpipes at the FDA are known for, it's their total hands-off policy! :rolleyes:
 

Forum List

Back
Top