Ideology

[Mountaineer Buc]

I love the second amendment for a bonus reason. When an ignorant leftist says Americans should have the right to healthcare, I bring up that as per our constitution we have the right to bear firearms. So you buy me an AR-15 and then we will discuss on implementing "right to healthcare" in the constitution.

Oh, aren't you so clever.

How's that working out for you?


Do I start with the fact that nowhere in the second amendment are you guaranteed the money to buy a gun, or should I get into how Life...In addition to liberty and the persuit of happiness are inalienable rights of all mankind that are currently infringed by the government?

To put the shoe on the other foot, would it be an infringement of your second amendment rights if you had to pay $1,500 a month for use of a gun shop with a $5,000 deductable in order to own the gun you want?

If the insurance industry slapped you with a 100% increase in your life insurance policy because you owned guns since gun owners tend to commit suicide with their guns, would that be an infringement?

Or would you rather take your AR-15 and shut the **** up while people go to the doctor they can't afford?

[Mountaineer Buc]

Oh, and before you compose a long winded retort accusing me of being emotional or irrational, please understand that I already consider you a lost cause and that my retort is for the benefit of the reader and not an invitation to debate semantics with a mental lightweight such as yourself.

[Jonny]

I love the second amendment for a bonus reason. When an ignorant leftist says Americans should have the right to healthcare, I bring up that as per our constitution we have the right to bear firearms. So you buy me an AR-15 and then we will discuss on implementing "right to healthcare" in the constitution.

Oh, aren't you so clever.

How's that working out for you?


Do I start with the fact that nowhere in the second amendment are you guaranteed the money to buy a gun, or should I get into how Life...In addition to liberty and the persuit of happiness are inalienable rights of all mankind that are currently infringed by the government?

To put the shoe on the other foot, would it be an infringement of your second amendment rights if you had to pay $1,500 a month for use of a gun shop with a $5,000 deductable in order to own the gun you want?

If the insurance industry slapped you with a 100% increase in your life insurance policy because you owned guns since gun owners tend to commit suicide with their guns, would that be an infringement?

Or would you rather take your AR-15 and shut the **** up while people go to the doctor they can't afford?

I know I am very clever MB, being clever works out great because I can manipulate my emotional opponents with ease.

I have always told you that a "right" simply means that the government will not interfere or penalize you for exercising a right you already possess.

Are you one of those that assumes a "right" means the government will pay the costs for the service you hope to receive? If your answer is no, then we are on the same page. But if your answer is yes especially in the area of healthcare, then you are a hypocrite and I take great pleasure in pointing out the inconsistency.

Remember, I am a classical liberal, and classical liberals do not confuse rights with privileges. I want to buy my own damn gun AND healthcare. But it is you leftists who are inconsistent with how you define a right. Why does "right to life" mean government buys you healthcare, but that does not apply to 2nd amendment? Also why doesn't right to life mean right to food or right to wife?

Moral of the story to resident leftists: Please be consistent on how you define a right and apply it accordingly across the board.

[Mountaineer Buc]

Child, please.

You better bring better **** to this discussion because you are waaaaaay behind.

Take your allegedly classical bullshit somewhere else. Nobody cares about you. They care about ideas that help THEM.

Once you manage to get your **** out of your mouth, we can talk. Until then, piss off.

[Jonny]

Oh, and before you compose a long winded retort accusing me of being emotional or irrational, please understand that I already consider you a lost cause and that my retort is for the benefit of the reader and not an invitation to debate semantics with a mental lightweight such as yourself.

Child, please.

You better bring better **** to this discussion because you are waaaaaay behind.

Take your allegedly classical bullshit somewhere else. Nobody cares about you. They care about ideas that help THEM.

Once you manage to get your **** out of your mouth, we can talk. Until then, piss off.

I thought you weren't going to be emotional this time around and not indulge me in a back and forth. Lol, you are what you are MB. Embrace it.

[Mountaineer Buc]

Oh, and before you compose a long winded retort accusing me of being emotional or irrational, please understand that I already consider you a lost cause and that my retort is for the benefit of the reader and not an invitation to debate semantics with a mental lightweight such as yourself.

Child, please.

You better bring better **** to this discussion because you are waaaaaay behind.

Take your allegedly classical bullshit somewhere else. Nobody cares about you. They care about ideas that help THEM.

Once you manage to get your **** out of your mouth, we can talk. Until then, piss off.

I thought you weren't going to be emotional this time around and not indulge me in a back and forth. Lol, you are what you are MB. Embrace it.

Make a point about gun control or health care.

Otherwise, shut the **** up.

Cuck.

[beardmcdoug]

Oh, aren't you so clever.

How's that working out for you?


Do I start with the fact that nowhere in the second amendment are you guaranteed the money to buy a gun, or should I get into how Life...In addition to liberty and the persuit of happiness are inalienable rights of all mankind that are currently infringed by the government?

To put the shoe on the other foot, would it be an infringement of your second amendment rights if you had to pay $1,500 a month for use of a gun shop with a $5,000 deductable in order to own the gun you want?

If the insurance industry slapped you with a 100% increase in your life insurance policy because you owned guns since gun owners tend to commit suicide with their guns, would that be an infringement?

Or would you rather take your AR-15 and shut the **** up while people go to the doctor they can't afford?

I know I am very clever MB, being clever works out great because I can manipulate my emotional opponents with ease.

I have always told you that a "right" simply means that the government will not interfere or penalize you for exercising a right you already possess.

Are you one of those that assumes a "right" means the government will pay the costs for the service you hope to receive? If your answer is no, then we are on the same page. But if your answer is yes especially in the area of healthcare, then you are a hypocrite and I take great pleasure in pointing out the inconsistency.

Remember, I am a classical liberal, and classical liberals do not confuse rights with privileges. I want to buy my own damn gun AND healthcare. But it is you leftists who are inconsistent with how you define a right. Why does "right to life" mean government buys you healthcare, but that does not apply to 2nd amendment? Also why doesn't right to life mean right to food or right to wife?

Moral of the story to resident leftists: Please be consistent on how you define a right and apply it accordingly across the board.

Jonny, you're thinking about things in a tribalistic, 7th century kind of way. Sure your "classical liberalism" ideals are a nice goal, but the reality of our 21st century lives doesn't necessarily allow for us to take the direct "anarcho-capitalist" path to achieve "anarcho-capitalist" outcomes. Everything in the modern world is effected by boundaries, in some shape or form, so by default nothing is a free market; so everything must be considered within this framework.

When you look at healthcare and health insurance you are looking at something that, by definition, cannot operate successfully as a free market, and it is why Americans pay "double the price for half the healthcare", compared to the other top industrialized nations.



It is our own outdated Wild West mentality that has set this unfortunate situation up. To be clear, here are the basic requirements of a "free market", and why health insurance is incompatible with that method of price determination and goods distribution:

1) Buyers and sellers must be able to freely enter and exit the market as they please:
- this is inherently a snag on the healthcare market because nobody *chooses* to enter it, it just happens. You're biking and you hit a rock, you break your leg, but you don't already have health insurance, so now you're, out of nowhere, $40,000 in debt. And this is exactly why costs are what they are, because hospitals, pharm companies, medical supply co's have been able to rely on Joe Blows paying out huge inflated sums that they have to pay out because they were caught with their pants down without insurance.
- Also, and this point bleeds into the second, that not only do buyers of healthcare not freely get to enter and exit the healthcare market, but neither do sellers. Becoming a doctor to today's standards is not something you can just relatively "walk into" - it's a lifelong commitment, based on years and years of specialized training and thousands and thousands of dollars in investment to become an accredited seller in this type of market. There is most certainly a gateway from this end as well. Again, nothing is a black and white free market or not, it is all part of some spectrum, but being a fruit merchant in the town square is much different than being a doctor.

2) There must be information transparency about the quality and cost of goods:
- With the aforementioned "gateway", doctors have by far the upper hand in comparison to the buyer, in terms of portayed quality or necessity of the good they are willing to provide to the buyer. The buyer of healthcare must surrender a great deal of trust to the doctor's relative expertise about the subject being purchased, and therefore does not allow for the buyer to operate with maximum discretion. This inherently skews the market to the seller.

3) The buyer must be able to freely choose which service provider to purchase from, based on information gathered from 1 and 2:
- Again, a problem inherent to healthcare purchase is that if you break your leg, or have a heart attack, you're not exactly in the position to shop around. You're going with the closest guy to you. Say that guy charges 50% more for reason (because he can, hey, why not). And the thing us, we're not talking about a $5 service, we're talking about life changing money between 10-15% on some if this stuff. The immediacy that people often have to purchase healthcare infringes on the "free market" nature.


Point being, nothing in this world is a free market, everything is subsidized to some degree, and if you earnestly look at the healthcare market place it's plain to see that nothing about it is conducive to the "open and free" end of the spectrum, and in fact, we've been trying that and it done nothing but make "big pharma" and "big medical" rich at the expense of the American People


Sure, it's great, "I wanna do what I wanna do, don't tell me what to do" ... But we live in a modernized world with modernized problems (with modernized solutions to match). A federal government serves that purpose. It's what coordinates tackling the 10-state problem of keeping the Mississippi healthy, it's what gets us too the moon, and helps us solve nationwide epidemics. I'm not saying hand the keys over blindly, but sometimes we need to take a step back and say "hey do these set of rules even apply to this type of game?"

[deltbucs]

Gun wise I feel it is a person's right to own a gun, but for the safety of our citizens they should be able to safely operate it. That basically means no legal ownership for those with mental handicaps that would make them dangerous, and safety classes including a skills test (and some damn trigger discipline!) before obtaining a permit. If we require that to be able to drive I don't see why we can't require that to own a gun. I don't really see those as unreasonable requests but I've had a couple friends be offended at the very notion of any gun ownership regulation.

I don't believe that any sort of gun legislation will quell gun issues to any significant degree. Expanded background checks, wait times, etc. They won't do anything at all. It's completely fruitless, which is why so many gun owners are against it for fear of slippery slope. Their fears are, "well that didn't work, what next?".

In my opinion, which will likely not be popular among gun owners, the only real solution is to repeal the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act. Gun owners were getting sued so much in the 90s and early 2000s that this was enacted to provide gun manufacturers legal protections from actions caused by their products. The biggest catalyst for change in companies and products in the US is financials. This bill prevents gun manufacturers from self-regulation and safety enhancements, because they are protected from civil liabilities of their products. If gun companies were able to be sued for negligent practices and advertisement, this would eventually change their approach to the their products, creating safeguards to prevent stolen or illegal guns from being obtained through technology such as finger print scanner, gps chips, etc. Of course this would come at the cost of the consumer which would irritate gun owners, but some crazy number (between 89-93%) of gun crimes involve an illegal gun. This is something that we can use to the market to fix otherwise it is gun owners vs. anti-gun and neither have a valid solution with the culture we have built around guns.

Will this stop everything? Of course not...nothing in the realm of possibility will, but it would do a lot more than any sort of "gun control". I mean I guess stricter gun control will make some people feel better in a placebo sort of way, but do we really need government involvement for that purpose? And before the argument is presented about this not helping the billions of guns already in circulation...gun control, even bans on gun sales won't help that either.

Interesting take. I could get behind this. I still don't think better regulation would hurt. I think the "Gun Show Loophole" should be closed, for instance.

[Zarniwoop]

I know I am very clever MB, being clever works out great because I can manipulate my emotional opponents with ease.

I have always told you that a "right" simply means that the government will not interfere or penalize you for exercising a right you already possess.

Are you one of those that assumes a "right" means the government will pay the costs for the service you hope to receive? If your answer is no, then we are on the same page. But if your answer is yes especially in the area of healthcare, then you are a hypocrite and I take great pleasure in pointing out the inconsistency.

Remember, I am a classical liberal, and classical liberals do not confuse rights with privileges. I want to buy my own damn gun AND healthcare. But it is you leftists who are inconsistent with how you define a right. Why does "right to life" mean government buys you healthcare, but that does not apply to 2nd amendment? Also why doesn't right to life mean right to food or right to wife?

Moral of the story to resident leftists: Please be consistent on how you define a right and apply it accordingly across the board.

Jonny, you're thinking about things in a tribalistic, 7th century kind of way. Sure your "classical liberalism" ideals are a nice goal, but the reality of our 21st century lives doesn't necessarily allow for us to take the direct "anarcho-capitalist" path to achieve "anarcho-capitalist" outcomes. Everything in the modern world is effected by boundaries, in some shape or form, so by default nothing is a free market; so everything must be considered within this framework.

When you look at healthcare and health insurance you are looking at something that, by definition, cannot operate successfully as a free market, and it is why Americans pay "double the price for half the healthcare", compared to the other top industrialized nations.



It is our own outdated Wild West mentality that has set this unfortunate situation up. To be clear, here are the basic requirements of a "free market", and why health insurance is incompatible with that method of price determination and goods distribution:

1) Buyers and sellers must be able to freely enter and exit the market as they please:
- this is inherently a snag on the healthcare market because nobody *chooses* to enter it, it just happens. You're biking and you hit a rock, you break your leg, but you don't already have health insurance, so now you're, out of nowhere, $40,000 in debt. And this is exactly why costs are what they are, because hospitals, pharm companies, medical supply co's have been able to rely on Joe Blows paying out huge inflated sums that they have to pay out because they were caught with their pants down without insurance.
- Also, and this point bleeds into the second, that not only do buyers of healthcare not freely get to enter and exit the healthcare market, but neither do sellers. Becoming a doctor to today's standards is not something you can just relatively "walk into" - it's a lifelong commitment, based on years and years of specialized training and thousands and thousands of dollars in investment to become an accredited seller in this type of market. There is most certainly a gateway from this end as well. Again, nothing is a black and white free market or not, it is all part of some spectrum, but being a fruit merchant in the town square is much different than being a doctor.

2) There must be information transparency about the quality and cost of goods:
- With the aforementioned "gateway", doctors have by far the upper hand in comparison to the buyer, in terms of portayed quality or necessity of the good they are willing to provide to the buyer. The buyer of healthcare must surrender a great deal of trust to the doctor's relative expertise about the subject being purchased, and therefore does not allow for the buyer to operate with maximum discretion. This inherently skews the market to the seller.

3) The buyer must be able to freely choose which service provider to purchase from, based on information gathered from 1 and 2:
- Again, a problem inherent to healthcare purchase is that if you break your leg, or have a heart attack, you're not exactly in the position to shop around. You're going with the closest guy to you. Say that guy charges 50% more for reason (because he can, hey, why not). And the thing us, we're not talking about a $5 service, we're talking about life changing money between 10-15% on some if this stuff. The immediacy that people often have to purchase healthcare infringes on the "free market" nature.


Point being, nothing in this world is a free market, everything is subsidized to some degree, and if you earnestly look at the healthcare market place it's plain to see that nothing about it is conducive to the "open and free" end of the spectrum, and in fact, we've been trying that and it done nothing but make "big pharma" and "big medical" rich at the expense of the American People


Sure, it's great, "I wanna do what I wanna do, don't tell me what to do" ... But we live in a modernized world with modernized problems (with modernized solutions to match). A federal government serves that purpose. It's what coordinates tackling the 10-state problem of keeping the Mississippi healthy, it's what gets us too the moon, and helps us solve nationwide epidemics. I'm not saying hand the keys over blindly, but sometimes we need to take a step back and say "hey do these set of rules even apply to this type of game?"

I agree with your basic premise about why healthcare doesn't fit the traditional free market model...we probably disagree on how to fix it though.


That graph you posted is something we all can get behind in terms of motivating a solution - (even if its not the same one)...however, I think graphs like this are incredibly misleading because they don't control for the one thing that sets us apart from the rest of the world -- we have the most unhealthy habits in the world by far -- we eat too much, we eat shitty food, we eat overprocessed food, we don't exercise as a nation...etc etc. There is no way our benefit to cost ratio will ever approach the rest of the world while we continue to be lazy, obese, Big Mac eating dickheads.

[beardmcdoug]

lol agree Zarni - maybe the strategy is to export our mcdonalds culture, like we're doing, and drag everybody else over there that we don't stand out

[Zarniwoop]

I just hate that in this vitriolic right versus left debate on healthcare, that we forget the biggest factor to our health care is our own choices and lifestyle.

[beardmcdoug]

I mean its a good point... the older I get, the harder I find it to rationalize the concept of "getting everybody on the same system", when there are so many people with absolutely zero self control or interest in their own health or their children's health.

we should tax the fat

[bucfanclw]

I remember how ballistic people went when soda taxes were even being suggested. Doesn't seem that crazy in the context of this discussion.

[Zarniwoop]

I remember how ballistic people went when soda taxes were even being suggested. Doesn't seem that crazy in the context of this discussion.

i'd still be against it. way too easy for government officials to tax some unhealthy things and not others because of their personal investments, kickbacks, etc.

other countries don't have to tax shitty food for people not to eat it.

[bucfanclw]

I remember how ballistic people went when soda taxes were even being suggested. Doesn't seem that crazy in the context of this discussion.

i'd still be against it. way too easy for government officials to tax some unhealthy things and not others because of their personal investments, kickbacks, etc.

other countries don't have to tax shitty food for people not to eat it.

It's not a tax to get people to stop, it's a tax to subsidize the added costs they're creating for the healthcare system by their bad choices. Much like tobacco taxes.

[HamBone]

i'd still be against it. way too easy for government officials to tax some unhealthy things and not others because of their personal investments, kickbacks, etc.

other countries don't have to tax shitty food for people not to eat it.

It's not a tax to get people to stop, it's a tax to subsidize the added costs they're creating for the healthcare system by their bad choices. Much like tobacco taxes.

So why not just have them pay higher premiums and/or deductibles?

[SDBucs]

The "feminists" who wear hijabs/support Islam are complete disconnected hypocrites. Amazing how the left acts this way.

Mean old straight christian white male Trump said Islam is bad so naturally they must be an "oppressed" group. So other "oppressed" groups like feminists and gays have to stand in solidarity with them and fight back against the "oppressor" despite the fact that many Islamic nations are the epitome of actually mistreating these types of people.

Marxism has done wonders to our society.

[Mountaineer Buc]

The "feminists" who wear hijabs/support Islam are complete disconnected hypocrites. Amazing how the left acts this way.

Mean old straight christian white male Trump said Islam is bad so naturally they must be an "oppressed" group. So other "oppressed" groups like feminists and gays have to stand in solidarity with them and fight back against the "oppressor" despite the fact that many Islamic nations are the epitome of actually mistreating these types of people.

Marxism has done wonders to our society.

Yeah, the Islam chapter was my favorite part of the Communist manifesto.

Marxism has nothing to do with identity politics, dickhead.

I haven't even read it and I know that.

You know less about conservatism than you do about liberalism or progressivism.

Read more, post less

[SDBucs]

The "feminists" who wear hijabs/support Islam are complete disconnected hypocrites. Amazing how the left acts this way.

Mean old straight christian white male Trump said Islam is bad so naturally they must be an "oppressed" group. So other "oppressed" groups like feminists and gays have to stand in solidarity with them and fight back against the "oppressor" despite the fact that many Islamic nations are the epitome of actually mistreating these types of people.

Marxism has done wonders to our society.

Yeah, the Islam chapter was my favorite part of the Communist manifesto.

Marxism has nothing to do with identity politics, dickhead.

I haven't even read it and I know that.

You know less about conservatism than you do about liberalism or progressivism.

Read more, post less

Anddddd when you boil down Identity politics it gets down to Oppressed vs Oppressor. Marxism.

What do you think the core principles behind Gender Studies/Feminist Studies/etc. classes are? Oppressed vs Oppressor. Marxism.

Pretty common knowledge.

[Mountaineer Buc]

Yeah, the Islam chapter was my favorite part of the Communist manifesto.

Marxism has nothing to do with identity politics, dickhead.

I haven't even read it and I know that.

You know less about conservatism than you do about liberalism or progressivism.

Read more, post less

Anddddd when you boil down Identity politics it gets down to Oppressed vs Oppressor. Marxism.

What do you think the core principles behind Gender Studies/Feminist Studies/etc. classes are? Oppressed vs Oppressor. Marxism.

Pretty common knowledge.

Marx was an economist, dumbass.

He talked about economic classes. To hear you tell it, he was a feminist Social Justice Warrior nutcase.

The man critiqued Capitalism. Not gender.

Christ, you are stupid.

[Corsair]

So states rights is great so long as they're supporting a position you favor. If you don't favor a position, then you'd be all for federal government intervention. Got it.

Quick question, and anyone here can participate:

Do you support the president's change in LGBTQ Trans-rights by letting the states decide?

Do you also support the president's return to federal cannabis law enforcement bypassing several state legalization laws?

[deltbucs]

Yeah, the Islam chapter was my favorite part of the Communist manifesto.

Marxism has nothing to do with identity politics, dickhead.

I haven't even read it and I know that.

You know less about conservatism than you do about liberalism or progressivism.

Read more, post less

Anddddd when you boil down Identity politics it gets down to Oppressed vs Oppressor. Marxism.

What do you think the core principles behind Gender Studies/Feminist Studies/etc. classes are? Oppressed vs Oppressor. Marxism.

Pretty common knowledge.

You're an embarrassment to the republicans on this board.

[HamBone]

So states rights is great so long as they're supporting a position you favor. If you don't favor a position, then you'd be all for federal government intervention. Got it.

Quick question, and anyone here can participate:

Do you support the president's change in LGBTQ Trans-rights by letting the states decide?

Do you also support the president's return to federal cannabis law enforcement bypassing several state legalization laws?

Yes. And marijuana should be legalized...

[mightyleemoon]

So states rights is great so long as they're supporting a position you favor. If you don't favor a position, then you'd be all for federal government intervention. Got it.

Quick question, and anyone here can participate:

Do you support the president's change in LGBTQ Trans-rights by letting the states decide?

Do you also support the president's return to federal cannabis law enforcement bypassing several state legalization laws?

I didn't believe in the state's right to limit an individual's freedoms, liberties, or rights.

And marijuana should be legal. It's a colossal waste of money to criminalize it.

[Mountaineer Buc]

Quick question, and anyone here can participate:

Do you support the president's change in LGBTQ Trans-rights by letting the states decide?

Do you also support the president's return to federal cannabis law enforcement bypassing several state legalization laws?

Yes. And marijuana should be legalized...

It seems that the administration agrees with you, but not for recreational use.

The press secretary cited the opioid epidemic as proof that they shouldn't be encouraging drug use.

[HamBone]

Yes. And marijuana should be legalized...

It seems that the administration agrees with you, but not for recreational use.

The press secretary cited the opioid epidemic as proof that they shouldn't be encouraging drug use.

Ok...then the Administration and I disagree on the subject of marijuana.

But, I would agree that they shouldn't encourage drug use...hell, they shouldn't encourage the consumption of alcohol.

[Mountaineer Buc]

It seems that the administration agrees with you, but not for recreational use.

The press secretary cited the opioid epidemic as proof that they shouldn't be encouraging drug use.

Ok...then the Administration and I disagree on the subject of marijuana.

But, I would agree that they shouldn't encourage drug use...hell, they shouldn't encourage the consumption of alcohol.

And if the statement is all they do about it then it's fine.

The federal government shouldn't meddle with the states on this.

[HamBone]

Ok...then the Administration and I disagree on the subject of marijuana.

But, I would agree that they shouldn't encourage drug use...hell, they shouldn't encourage the consumption of alcohol.

And if the statement is all they do about it then it's fine.

The federal government shouldn't meddle with the states on this.

Trump is coming for our beaners and our weed?

[Mountaineer Buc]

And if the statement is all they do about it then it's fine.

The federal government shouldn't meddle with the states on this.

Trump is coming for our beaners and our weed?

Well it depends on who you ask. I think it's safe to say President Trump isn't going to remove weed from schedule 1. But I doubt there's going to be some goon squad running around Colorado shutting down head shops.

[deltbucs]

Quick question, and anyone here can participate:

Do you support the president's change in LGBTQ Trans-rights by letting the states decide?

Do you also support the president's return to federal cannabis law enforcement bypassing several state legalization laws?

I didn't believe in the state's right to limit an individual's freedoms, liberties, or rights.

And marijuana should be legal. It's a colossal waste of money to criminalize it.

It's no coincidence that Sessions wants to go back to adding more usage of private prisons. Word is he's also looking to seek mandatory minimum punishments for nonviolent drug offenders.
He's trying to **** up one of the few things the Obama administration got right. And I don't believe this to be a partisan issue. These issues are nothing but a money grab, a drain on tax payers, and further preventing criminals the ability to rehabilitate and be productive members of society (including people just caught with some pot).