Governor Jindal of Louisiana says GOP must stop being "Stupid Party" - Polidicks

[QUOTE=BFG9000;39378596]Oh look, another person who thinks citizens are allowed to buy assault rifles All ignorance aside this isn't about "Magunz" and you stereotyping me does not really make me want to listen to you. Yes I get your point. Yes, our healthcare system could be better. But all this money and time people are wasting on pushing gun control... Don't you think that could go to more important things that actually WILL save lives like Healthcare? I think I explained this before but didn't elaborate on it. As a matter of fact I recall Micheal Bloomberg saying he will donate the bulk of his inheritance to lobby stricter gun control. Why not put that towards lobbying better healthcare? I don't oppose gun control just because I want to buy "assault weapons" in the future, I also oppose it because it'll be wasted effort.[/QUOTE] Because the US actually needs a revamp of all their legislations regarding ranged weapons?? Ever though of that? It's been proven plenty of times it's downright shit in it's current state, and even though there are some rough edges on the bill Obama intends to pass, it's still a step in the right direction. And pretty much everyone affiliated with GOP or the Republican party downright dislikes the idea of free & public healthcare, since they strongly believe in that everyone should [I]just[/I] pick themselves up by their bootstraps.

[QUOTE=codemaster85;39378857]No you said our healthcare was perfect as is, and your gun rights were much more important. Keep back peddling, it just makes you look more of a moron gun nut stereotype.[/QUOTE] I didnt say it was perfect. I just said it just isnt as much a priority to me. And if you misinterpreted that somehow I was just saying that comparatively to most of the world our healthcare is great, I certainly wasnt saying its the best. And I certainly wasnt saying we should nevereverever improve it. [editline]27th January 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=Van-man;39378880]Because the US actually needs a revamp of all their legislations regarding ranged weapons?? Ever though of that? It's been proven plenty of times it's downright shit in it's current state, and even though there are some rough edges on the bill Obama intends to pass, it's still a step in the right direction. And pretty much everyone affiliated with GOP or the Republican party downright dislikes the idea of free & public healthcare, since they strongly believe in that everyone should [I]just[/I] pick themselves up by their bootstraps.[/QUOTE] Background checks, fine. Gunshow loophole, fine. But "High" capacity mags and another AWB? Not fine; they're re-implementing something that was a waste of time, effort and money.

[QUOTE=Van-man;39364763]The US is pretty much at the bottom of the barrel when it comes to healthcare, compared to other first world countries. And Uganda is frankly a shithole with a corrupt government and lots of tribe leaders all duking it out on the battlefield. You're literally comparing the US health system to the lowest denominator on this planet.[/QUOTE] The US has the single best R&D industry for healthcare on the planet, it is universally recognized that without the US's less restrictive testing laws and more protective pharmaceutical copyright laws, medicine would be far far behind where it is now. While I won't argue that the current situation is 'good' for the majority of people, you can't just copy-paste the system from a European nation onto the US, it'd be like if the EU tried to come with a unified, codified, strict system for handing out healthcare to every individual member state as opposed to trying to create a unified set of standards that each individual state has to meet. Plus Universal healthcare is just a poor idea because it makes the assumption that everyone has the same needs for coverage, where that's not true at all, and trying to create a blanket coverage for a nation that has the same population as the entire Eurozone - in fact, the various levels of coverage within the Eurozone is quite impressive and shows how decentralized large scale universal healthcare has to be to work. Also Everyone here that thinks that Gun Control is a good idea is a flaming idiot who needs to seriously back up and realize that Gun Control has no measurable impact on violent crime, I will bust my chart out again from the Mass Debate thread Now on topic, Bobby Jindal is the worst governor ever, completely seriously, what he means by not being the "stupid party" is that he is trying to encourage further partisanship and radicalization of the Republican party because he's one of those people who thinks that the party didn't "stick to it's guns" enough about the 2012 elections.

[QUOTE=PzOwNeD;39379392]The US has the single best R&D industry for healthcare on the planet,[/QUOTE] But it comes at costs which you even mention yourself: [QUOTE=PzOwNeD;39379392]it is universally recognized that without [B]the US's less restrictive testing laws and more protective pharmaceutical copyright laws[/B], medicine would be far far behind where it is now.[/QUOTE] Those things are (as usual) also screwing over poor people, but benefiting the upper classes. Guess how cheap copy medicine that does the same shit as the real deal usually costs? It varies between a-tenth and 1-25th of the price of the real fuckexpensive deal, and with the same amount of unbiased and vigorous regulation tacked on it [QUOTE=PzOwNeD;39379392] While I won't argue that the current situation is 'good' for the majority of people, you can't just copy-paste the system from a European nation onto the US, it'd be like if the EU tried to come with a unified, codified, strict system for handing out healthcare to every individual member state as opposed to trying to create a unified set of standards that each individual state has to meet. [/QUOTE] Well the states has to follow federal law, so they can only come up with idea on how to improve it for everybody, or shut up & comply. Which especially the southern states should [B]REALLY[/B] learn to-do. [QUOTE=PzOwNeD;39379392] Plus[B] Universal healthcare is just a poor idea because it makes the assumption that everyone has the same needs for coverage[/B], where that's not true at all, and trying to create a blanket coverage for a nation that has the same population as the entire Eurozone - in fact, the various levels of coverage within the Eurozone is quite impressive and shows how decentralized large scale universal healthcare has to be to work.[/QUOTE] My fucking god, you can't be serious. They're even working on lifting up the standards in the Eurozone in general, but shit takes time. But hey, at-least they're doing [I]SOMETHING[/I] even with a damn recession still brewin' [QUOTE=PzOwNeD;39379392] Also Everyone here that thinks that Gun Control is a good idea is a flaming idiot who needs to seriously back up and realize that Gun Control has no measurable impact on violent crime, I will bust my chart out again from the Mass Debate thread [/QUOTE] Will it work in the short term? No. Will it work in the long term? Yes, and that's why it damn right needs to be implemented as fast as possible.

No, it won't work in the long term. And why would you want to take guns away from law abiding citizens of the future? This kind of thinking makes me sick. Now, stricter and more background checks and THAT kind of gun control will work, but outright banning guns is just wrong. People won't forget how to build guns, either. There are such things as improvised firearms. Hell, some guy built an AK47 out of a shovel and some cheap barrel kit.

[QUOTE=BFG9000;39382307]No, it won't work in the long term. And why would you want to take guns away from law abiding citizens of the future? This kind of thinking makes me sick. Now, stricter and more background checks and THAT kind of gun control will work, but outright banning guns is just wrong. [/QUOTE] Has anyone in this thread advocated or even mentioned banning all guns?

[QUOTE]Oh look, another person who thinks citizens are allowed to buy assault rifles [/QUOTE] Oh look, more semantics. Yeah ok, semi automatic military style rifles are not really "assault rifles" if you want to be pedantic, but many of them base their design off of true assault rifles (i.e ar-15 vs m16). My view on gun control is that with .88 guns per person and the gun culture we have, bans are infeasible. In addition, banning of "assault weapons" makes little sense, as the defining features of an assault weapon (pistol grip, collapsible stock, flash hider, etc) do nothing for its lethality. Not to mention the fact that most crime is committed with handguns anyway. That said the case for those semi auto rifles is kinda iffy in my mind. Sure, sport and hobby are valid reasons, but defense? For open carry (cant conceal a rifle after all) rifles tend to be cumbersome and bulky. For home defense, they're relatively difficult to maneuver indoors and overkill for most situations, especially in densely populated areas where your shots can penetrate walls,etc. A rifle is a medium to long range weapon, and I don't see very many defense situations where you're engaging out to 50m+. The "we NEED these guns to overthrow the government" idea is laughable at best, as I doubt that a handful of people with small arms can make much of a dent in the US military. If they do, it wont be because they have civvie AR-15s or AKs, but rather access to captured military gear, homemade explosives and IEDs. In spite of that, banning long rifles will do little or nothing for most crime, so yeah sure, keep them legal. Practical measures for gun control would be more background checks and more sensible regulations. Of course, a rehab focused justice system, ending the drug war, and better mental health help will also go a long way towards dropping all kinds of crime, not just gun related types. Problem being, current GOP opposes all of that.

[QUOTE=The Letter Q;39383108]Oh look, more semantics. Yeah ok, semi automatic military style rifles are not really "assault rifles" if you want to be pedantic, but many of them base their design off of true assault rifles (i.e ar-15 vs m16). My view on gun control is that with .88 guns per person and the gun culture we have, bans are infeasible. In addition, banning of "assault weapons" makes little sense, as the defining features of an assault weapon (pistol grip, collapsible stock, flash hider, etc) do nothing for its lethality. Not to mention the fact that most crime is committed with handguns anyway. That said the case for those semi auto rifles is kinda iffy in my mind. Sure, sport and hobby are valid reasons, but defense? For open carry (cant conceal a rifle after all) rifles tend to be cumbersome and bulky. For home defense, they're relatively difficult to maneuver indoors and overkill for most situations, especially in densely populated areas where your shots can penetrate walls,etc. A rifle is a medium to long range weapon, and I don't see very many defense situations where you're engaging out to 50m+. The "we NEED these guns to overthrow the government" idea is laughable at best, as I doubt that a handful of people with small arms can make much of a dent in the US military. If they do, it wont be because they have civvie AR-15s or AKs, but rather access to captured military gear, homemade explosives and IEDs. In spite of that, banning long rifles will do little or nothing for most crime, so yeah sure, keep them legal. Practical measures for gun control would be more background checks and more sensible regulations. Of course, a rehab focused justice system, ending the drug war, and better mental health help will also go a long way towards dropping all kinds of crime, not just gun related types. Problem being, current GOP opposes all of that.[/QUOTE] I think it has something to do with the magazine capacity restrictions and AWB being part of the plan; I'm sure if they were to remove those from the table they would get enough GOP votes to pass.

[QUOTE=BFG9000;39383683]I think it has something to do with the magazine capacity restrictions and AWB being part of the plan; I'm sure if they were to remove those from the table they would get enough GOP votes to pass.[/QUOTE] no, GOP will turn down anything that democrats put up to the table. Nor would they get rid of the drug war, improving mental health, or rehab focused justice system if the democrats put it up. plus its pretty much completely against their platform/nor their main target. [editline]27th January 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=BFG9000;39382307]No, it won't work in the long term. And why would you want to take guns away from law abiding citizens of the future? This kind of thinking makes me sick. Now, stricter and more background checks and THAT kind of gun control will work, but outright banning guns is just wrong. People won't forget how to build guns, either. There are such things as improvised firearms. Hell, some guy built an AK47 out of a shovel and some cheap barrel kit.[/QUOTE] its not really the future, look at the UK :v:.

[QUOTE=codemaster85;39386372]no, GOP will turn down anything that democrats put up to the table. Nor would they get rid of the drug war, improving mental health, or rehab focused justice system if the democrats put it up. plus its pretty much completely against their platform. [editline]27th January 2013[/editline] its not really the future, look at the UK :v:.[/QUOTE] Nopnopnop you can still get guns in UK, but "self defense" can't be your reason.

I'm just waiting for the Republican party to finally collapse (which would cause a similar collapse in the Democrats) so we can end this god-awful stint of the two-party system.

[QUOTE=BFG9000;39386383]Nopnopnop you can still get guns in UK, but "self defense" can't be your reason.[/QUOTE] Its strictly clubbing for hunting for sport, collecting (extremely strict), or need it for work, otherwise its not a valid reason. even if you do obtain a gun and a licence you have to apply for a 5 year licence, and if a cop even sees someone holding your firearm its against the law. to get a normal licence you have to go to an officer, explain why you need one, they make sure youre not a danger to the public, have a doctor to sign off that you are healthy enough to own one, must have two people that have known you for two years to prove you are a good person, an inspection to see if where you're storing your firearms will be a secured and safe place, and finally you have to have a face to face interview with their firearms officer explaining why you need it, and why you are fit for it. [B]all of this has to be done every 5 years.[/B] thats why barely no one bothers even getting one, nor would they need it (unless its for a job, or a club). And anyone that has been in jail for more than three years is banned from obtaining a firearm at all.

[QUOTE=codemaster85;39386455]Its strictly clubbing for hunting for sport, collecting (extremely strict), or need it for work, otherwise its not a valid reason. even if you do obtain a gun and a licence you have to apply for a 5 year licence, and if a cop even sees someone holding your firearm its against the law. to get a normal licence you have to go to an officer, explain why you need one, they make sure youre not a danger to the public, have a doctor to sign off that you are healthy enough to own one, must have two people that have known you for two years to prove you are a good person, an inspection to see if where you're storing your firearms will be a secured and safe place, and finally you have to have a face to face interview with their firearms officer explaining why you need it, and why you are fit for it. [B]all of this has to be done every 5 years.[/B] thats why barely no one bothers even getting one, nor would they need it (unless its for a job, or a club). And anyone that has been in jail for more than three years is banned from obtaining a firearm at all.[/QUOTE] Sounds like they need a little more common sense over there Good to know. [editline]27th January 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=Derubermensch;39386428]I'm just waiting for the Republican party to finally collapse (which would cause a similar collapse in the Democrats) so we can end this god-awful stint of the two-party system.[/QUOTE] Why did they even fucking need parties in the first place I really hope this happens but it seems unlikely :/

[QUOTE=BFG9000;39386484]Sounds like they need a little more common sense over there Good to know.[/QUOTE] yeah thats why their homicide rate with firearms is 0.12 per 100,000 population where here its 2.98 per 100,000 population. man their common sense is idiotic.

[QUOTE=codemaster85;39386521]yeah thats why their homicide rate with firearms is 0.12 per 100,000 population where here its 2.98 per 100,000 population. man their common sense is idiotic.[/QUOTE] But surely being more lenient about it wouldn't change that number I'm not saying to make it as easy to get a gun there as it is here, I'm just saying that if they have that 5 year system in place what the hell are they afraid of?

[QUOTE=BFG9000;39386700]But surely being more lenient about it wouldn't change that number I'm not saying to make it as easy to get a gun there as it is here, I'm just saying that if they have that 5 year system in place what the hell are they afraid of?[/QUOTE] they try to make guns negative because their main purpose is to kill things. if you have strict control over guns, obviously the crime/homicide with them will be lower. They are afraid of people being people as shown in the US and other countries. It has been nothing but beneficial to them.

[QUOTE=codemaster85;39386913]they try to make guns negative because their main purpose is to kill things. if you have strict control over guns, obviously the crime/homicide with them will be lower. They are afraid of people being people as shown in the US and other countries. It has been nothing but beneficial to them.[/QUOTE] Ah but as Diane Fienstein said, you can't sacrifice the rights of a few for the safety of many. Waiiiiit a second...

It's not healthcare vs guns. Guns are just smoke so they dont' have to deal with the real issues. God, don't you guys get it? The media and govt raise bullshit issues like DADT and gay marriage and guns and everything else not because it's necessarily important, but because they don't want to fix anything else. Economy tanking? Let's attack their guns! No, don't do anything about it, just keep em distracted. Open class warfare and the poor are losing? Oh no, missing white girl in aruba, que up the white knights! No healthcare? Oh let's talk about fetuses and abortion! [editline]28th January 2013[/editline] The government is obligated to provide for its people physical safety, economic security, physical well-being, and an environment which facilitates the pursuit of happiness. The US Govt has done one of four.

[QUOTE=BFG9000;39386936]Ah but as Diane Fienstein said, you can't sacrifice the rights of a few for the safety of many. Waiiiiit a second...[/QUOTE] and who exactly gives a shit? some gun control leads to more gun control.

[QUOTE=BFG9000;39369591]Nope. Try again. [B]Living =/= universal healthcare[/B][/QUOTE] I'm downright insulted by that last statement. As an American, I would take a small increase in taxes to ensure the safety of my fellow Americans as well to ensure that my own family is given proper medical treatment. Every man, women, and child deserves the right to be able to visit a doctor's office or the hospital and know they'll have proper treatment, and not be put into harms way for doing so. Actually let me tell you the fun tale of how my family stands as of the moment... We've got healthcare, my father works a decent job and usually brings in about $35 - $40 an hour at his job[about 75K - 100K a year depending on hours.] My father also has to take painkillers after dislocating his neck in a car accident with his company vehicle back in 2007. As most painkillers are, they are highly addictive and if you don't pay attention, you can overtake them on accident from not counting them correctly(or taking them in accordance to pain vs. dosage). Right now my father has been on withdrawl for two days, and has to wait another three days before getting his new prescription. The main reason for his over-taking was thanks to the fact we had a dentist which tried gaming our insurance, and would do fillings/tooth repairs over a two day period. Please note, my teeth are also in a similar form(he's actually left a vein exposed), and thanks to this I tried over-drinking caffeine in the hopes it would numb out the pain[it really doesn't]. If you know anything about pop, it screws up your teeth badly. Now four years on from that dentist screwing up one of my fillings causing major pain to my jaw line, and thanks to my weakass over-drinking pop to compensate for the pain without getting real painkillers... If I wanted to have my teeth repaired, I would have to pay at the least $5,000 to $10,000. I refuse outright to do this to my family, so I've refused medical treatment for my jawline, and I would rather let my teeth rot out of the gums, and suffer a little dignity from bad teeth, then disallow my family from having proper health insurance. And even with a good life, thats the life I live. In constant pain, and unable to get treatment, because I'm fucking afraid my niece or nephew will get hurt one day, and we'll be unable to pay for treatment. So when you think about saying, "Universal healthcare isn't needed!" think about what this country stands for, and think about the other families in the United States, which unlike my own are unable to pay for painkillers when they experience injuries and the likelyhood.

[QUOTE=BFG9000;39386936]Ah but as Diane Fienstein said, you can't sacrifice the rights of a few for the safety of many. Waiiiiit a second...[/QUOTE] Except no one here sees being able to own a gun as some kind of inalienable right. We just don't need guns, we don't have many animals worth hunting and since almost no one has a gun we don't need them for 'self-defense'. In what way would the UK be improved by making it easier to buy guns?

[QUOTE=codemaster85;39387191]and who exactly gives a shit? some gun control leads to more gun control.[/QUOTE] See? you admitted it. [editline]27th January 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=CatFodder;39387282]Except no one here sees being able to own a gun as some kind of inalienable right. We just don't need guns, we don't have many animals worth hunting and since almost no one has a gun we don't need them for 'self-defense'. In what way would the UK be improved by making it easier to buy guns?[/QUOTE] More freedoms for people who do. There ARE some people over there who are dissatisfied with the country's gun laws. And the Diane Fienstein quote was more or less a joke since she's a major proponent of gun control, which makes that statement a hypocritical one. [editline]27th January 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=JoeSkylynx;39387194]I'm downright insulted by that last statement. As an American, I would take a small increase in taxes to ensure the safety of my fellow Americans as well to ensure that my own family is given proper medical treatment. Every man, women, and child deserves the right to be able to visit a doctor's office or the hospital and know they'll have proper treatment, and not be put into harms way for doing so. Actually let me tell you the fun tale of how my family stands as of the moment... We've got healthcare, my father works a decent job and usually brings in about $35 - $40 an hour at his job[about 75K - 100K a year depending on hours.] My father also has to take painkillers after dislocating his neck in a car accident with his company vehicle back in 2007. As most painkillers are, they are highly addictive and if you don't pay attention, you can overtake them on accident from not counting them correctly(or taking them in accordance to pain vs. dosage). Right now my father has been on withdrawl for two days, and has to wait another three days before getting his new prescription. The main reason for his over-taking was thanks to the fact we had a dentist which tried gaming our insurance, and would do fillings/tooth repairs over a two day period. Please note, my teeth are also in a similar form(he's actually left a vein exposed), and thanks to this I tried over-drinking caffeine in the hopes it would numb out the pain[it really doesn't]. If you know anything about pop, it screws up your teeth badly. Now four years on from that dentist screwing up one of my fillings causing major pain to my jaw line, and thanks to my weakass over-drinking pop to compensate for the pain without getting real painkillers... If I wanted to have my teeth repaired, I would have to pay at the least $5,000 to $10,000. I refuse outright to do this to my family, so I've refused medical treatment for my jawline, and I would rather let my teeth rot out of the gums, and suffer a little dignity from bad teeth, then disallow my family from having proper health insurance. And even with a good life, thats the life I live. In constant pain, and unable to get treatment, because I'm fucking afraid my niece or nephew will get hurt one day, and we'll be unable to pay for treatment. So when you think about saying, "Universal healthcare isn't needed!" think about what this country stands for, and think about the other families in the United States, which unlike my own are unable to pay for painkillers when they experience injuries and the likelyhood.[/QUOTE] Kfine jeez; universal healthcare IS needed; but I feel like we need to stop all of this short term bullshit first before we can begin to think about it is all I'm saying D:

[QUOTE=RedReaper;39387094]It's not healthcare vs guns. Guns are just smoke so they dont' have to deal with the real issues. God, don't you guys get it? The media and govt raise bullshit issues like DADT and gay marriage and guns and everything else not because it's necessarily important, but because they don't want to fix anything else. Economy tanking? Let's attack their guns! No, don't do anything about it, just keep em distracted. Open class warfare and the poor are losing? Oh no, missing white girl in aruba, que up the white knights! No healthcare? Oh let's talk about fetuses and abortion! [editline]28th January 2013[/editline] The government is obligated to provide for its people physical safety, economic security, physical well-being, and an environment which facilitates the pursuit of happiness. The US Govt has done one of four.[/QUOTE] Yeah, [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wedge_issue"]wedge issues[/URL] aren't a new thing, and its frankly amazing how both sides keep falling for the same cheap trick. Maybe because it reduce complex issues or choices of party down to an emotional yes no reaction? I really have no clue. What irks me the most about the GOP is that they have the irrational support thing down to a science: either you are a True American Conservative[SUP]tm[/SUP] and support everything in the party platform, or the scum of the earth. Democrats on the other hand are a bunch of wishy-washy center rightists who can't get their shit together long enough to do more than bumble around. To me the major issues in the US are: -Military spending -Privacy -Free speech -Unsustainable taxes(too low) -Healthcare -IP/copyright -Campaign finance -Education -Corporate power And it frustrates me that pretty much no mainstream political party covers even 1/2 of those issues. What they do cover, the traditional red/blue stuff like abortion, gun control, or gay rights I don't care about as much. I might catch some flack for saying so, but those issues in my opinion are secondary to the much larger ones actually threatening our country and people. It's mind boggling that for others just one of these wedge issues is enough to make them vote D or R. [QUOTE]Kfine jeez; universal healthcare IS needed; but I feel like we need to stop all of this short term bullshit first before we can begin to think about it is all I'm saying D:[/QUOTE] You're the one who blundered into a healthcare discussion with the whole " hay guiz, guns r the real problem :downs:" not to mention your word games about whether healthcare was actually important for keeping people alive. That said, your suggestion to devote the money/political capital used for gun control for healthcare is asinine. Do you have any idea the changes that would have to take place in the insurance and pharma industries? They'll fight tooth and nail to kill change or warp it for their own gain. Money wise, the current medical program eats huge chunks of budget and whatever gun control funds(which would be used for what exactly? enforcement is already paid for) would barely make a difference. It doesn't even matter anyways, as HEALTHCARE IS AN UNRELATED ISSUE TO GUN CONTROL. To repeat: [B]HEALTHCARE IS AN UNRELATED ISSUE TO GUN CONTROL[/B]. If all guns are confiscated tomorrow or the government decides to hand out free AK-74s does not matter, and has no bearing on health/medical legislation.

[QUOTE=BFG9000;39387307]See? you admitted it. [editline]27th January 2013[/editline] More freedoms for people who do. There ARE some people over there who are dissatisfied with the country's gun laws. And the Diane Fienstein quote was more or less a joke since she's a major proponent of gun control, which makes that statement a hypocritical one. [editline]27th January 2013[/editline] Kfine jeez; universal healthcare IS needed; but I feel like we need to stop all of this short term bullshit first before we can begin to think about it is all I'm saying D:[/QUOTE] I admitted that i dont give a flying shit about this woman, but want MORE gun control? Yeah i did admit it, but i dont get why you think you won something.

[QUOTE=codemaster85;39387461]I admitted that i dont give a flying shit about this woman, but want MORE gun control? Yeah i did admit it, but i dont get why you think you won something.[/QUOTE] You quite clearly say that some gun control leads to more gun control; I admit my thinking went off on a loop but that triggered something from another debate in which someone said "oh I think we should only ban assault weapons but not hunting rifles theyre ok" Totally unrelated to the subject matter; I apologize. [editline]28th January 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=The Letter Q;39387341]Yeah, [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wedge_issue"]wedge issues[/URL] aren't a new thing, and its frankly amazing how both sides keep falling for the same cheap trick. Maybe because it reduce complex issues or choices of party down to an emotional yes no reaction? I really have no clue. What irks me the most about the GOP is that they have the irrational support thing down to a science: either you are a True American Conservative[SUP]tm[/SUP] and support everything in the party platform, or the scum of the earth. Democrats on the other hand are a bunch of wishy-washy center rightists who can't get their shit together long enough to do more than bumble around. To me the major issues in the US are: -Military spending -Privacy -Free speech -Unsustainable taxes(too low) -Healthcare -IP/copyright -Campaign finance -Education -Corporate power And it frustrates me that pretty much no mainstream political party covers even 1/2 of those issues. What they do cover, the traditional red/blue stuff like abortion, gun control, or gay rights I don't care about as much. I might catch some flack for saying so, but those issues in my opinion are secondary to the much larger ones actually threatening our country and people. It's mind boggling that for others just one of these wedge issues is enough to make them vote D or R. You're the one who blundered into a healthcare discussion with the whole " hay guiz, guns r the real problem :downs:" not to mention your word games about whether healthcare was actually important for keeping people alive. That said, your suggestion to devote the money/political capital used for gun control for healthcare is asinine. Do you have any idea the changes that would have to take place in the insurance and pharma industries? They'll fight tooth and nail to kill change or warp it for their own gain. Money wise, the current medical program eats huge chunks of budget and whatever gun control funds(which would be used for what exactly? enforcement is already paid for) would barely make a difference. It doesn't even matter anyways, as HEALTHCARE IS AN UNRELATED ISSUE TO GUN CONTROL. To repeat: [B]HEALTHCARE IS AN UNRELATED ISSUE TO GUN CONTROL[/B]. If all guns are confiscated tomorrow or the government decides to hand out free AK-74s does not matter, and has no bearing on health/medical legislation.[/QUOTE] Bear in mind I didnt want to argue about healthcare and gun control when I came to this thread, two unrelated subjects that are furthermore unrelated to the thread. I ended up doing so after this post: [quote]Yet they still oppose gay marriage and proper nationalized health care. So opposing AWB does nothing to improve their rep, unless your priorities are wack[/quote] In retrospect, I probably should have just shot back a oneline zinger or something and gotten on with life

[QUOTE=BFG9000;39387662]You quite clearly say that some gun control leads to more gun control; I admit my thinking went off on a loop but that triggered something from another debate in which someone said "oh I think we should only ban assault weapons but not hunting rifles theyre ok" Totally unrelated to the subject matter; I apologize. [editline]28th January 2013[/editline] Bear in mind I didnt want to argue about healthcare and gun control when I came to this thread, two unrelated subjects that are furthermore unrelated to the thread. I ended up doing so after this post: In retrospect, I probably should have just shot back a oneline zinger or something and gotten on with life[/QUOTE] [t]http://filesmelt.com/dl/digging_hole001.jpg[/t] Gonna require more effort than that to get yourself out of that hole.

[QUOTE=Van-man;39387807][t]http://filesmelt.com/dl/digging_hole001.jpg[/t] Gonna require more effort than that to get yourself out of that hole.[/QUOTE] Well, no. For one, this is the internet. I dont have to dig myself out of any holes, I can just stroll out. For another, I don't see why if I am in a "hole" you have to rub it in.

[QUOTE=Van-man;39380965]Those things are (as usual) also screwing over poor people, but benefiting the upper classes. Guess how cheap copy medicine that does the same shit as the real deal usually costs? It varies between a-tenth and 1-25th of the price of the real fuckexpensive deal, and with the same amount of unbiased and vigorous regulation tacked on it[/quote] I'm not arguing that the system does a good job of getting the medication to the people, when did I say this? I explicitly stated that the [b]R&D industry[/b] makes medication far better than anything else in the entire world, the restrictions in Europe or the lack of open money in China and the rampant and institutionalized corruption in Russia all prevent the rapid expansion of medication that cannot happen anywhere else. Just because it's not as cheap immediately to sell the cancer treatments, doesn't mean that the creation of the treatments aren't important, if not arguably as important as getting it to the people who need it. [QUOTE=Van-man;39380965]Well the states has to follow federal law, so they can only come up with idea on how to improve it for everybody, or shut up & comply. Which especially the southern states should [B]REALLY[/B] learn to-do.[/quote] But no one wants to create a system wherein the federal government creates a framework that states have to match or exceed, people create a false dichotomy where there are only two options: full blown socialized medication run by the government or completely private market system that has no government oversight or externalities. Canadian / British / German healthcare systems will not work for the US. It won't. [QUOTE=Van-man;39380965]My fucking god, you can't be serious. They're even working on lifting up the standards in the Eurozone in general, but shit takes time. But hey, at-least they're doing [I]SOMETHING[/I] even with a damn recession still brewin'[/quote] I am saying that the EU's system wherein the individual states have their own healthcare systems is GOOD, not BAD. I'm saying that the system that the EU system of a Transnational Organization setting a framework that member nations need to follow to remain in the system and get funding is a GOOD Thing, it Decentralizes the system and allows for nations to focus their healthcare needs on things that are important! I mean, Britain doesn't have to worry about suicide and mental health at the same level that Finland does, given that Finland has double the suicide rate of any other EU nation. [QUOTE=Van-man;39380965]Will it work in the short term? No. Will it work in the long term? Yes, and that's why it damn right needs to be implemented as fast as possible.[/QUOTE] No, it won't work in the long term. Over the past ten years, even though gun ownership has skyrocketed and the 1994 Federal Assault weapons ban has been repealed, crime has continued to fall at the exact same rate as before during the period of time when the Assault Weapons Ban was in place. Gun Control doesn't Do anything, Fighting Poverty and Fighting a Culture of Violence in Poor areas fixes problems. Trying to bandage a wound with gangrene just gives excuse to ignore the actual problem in favor of pushing an agenda. And anyone who says that you "need" to have a "need" for an excuse to own something is fucking idiotic, I don't see you needing Knives, or bows and Arrows, or slingshots, any of the billion other things that humans have used to kill other humans over the centuries that we have participated in warfare, but you like keeping them around in spite of their 'design' for violence!

[QUOTE=PzOwNeD;39389807]Canadian / British / German healthcare systems will not work for the US. It won't.[/QUOTE] According to what, exactly? You certainly seem confident in decentralization but don't seem to be aware that the EU wasn't much more than a free trade area until the last few decades. Most of the universal healthcare policies in Europe were enacted prior to this, and of course at that time was being done on a 'national' scale, even in nations that were federated themselves, like Germany. The only difference between this and the US is a matter of size.

[QUOTE=Megafan;39390140]According to what, exactly? You certainly seem confident in decentralization but don't seem to be aware that the EU wasn't much more than a free trade area until the last few decades. Most of the universal healthcare policies in Europe were enacted prior to this, and of course at that time was being done on a 'national' scale, even in nations that were federated themselves, like Germany. The only difference between this and the US is [B]a matter of size.[/B][/QUOTE] Here is the killer right here. The US has the physical size of Australia mixed with the Population of the Eurozone and the Environmental Diversity of the entirety of Africa. Trying to create a blanket 'coverage' for this area would be problematic in two senses: One, the chronic problem that US has with taxes and the like already, wherein people feel their money disappears and they have no evidence for the money they spent, so people will argue against spending their money - People in the US already chronically skip out on medical insurance under the reasoning that they cannot see the benefit in paying into something they don't use, and this opinion is very prevalent - in a system where there is no visible benefit. Two, a system that would be designed to take care of something this large would either be so massive that money would take forever to get to the places it is needed, or the system would become so decentralized in order to combat wait times that it would be as effective to just let each state individually maintain their own systems and just have a federal framework that mandated what the states were required to hand out (something I wish was more the focus of areas like the Department of Energy or Education, other areas the US has very mixed-bag coverage in). And costs in the US aren't driven by healthcare being greedy vampires per se, they are driven by the horrible inefficiencies in the actual healthcare system ( [url]http://www.economist.com/blogs/dailychart/2011/06/us-health-care-spending[/url] ) that drives up costs in order to line the pockets of people who feel they should be paid better than they are for the amount of schooling they undertook (doctors, who take on average 12 years to become an actual doctor, are paid over three times the average salary of someone who got a PhD (reference: [url]http://www.payscale.com/research/US/Degree=Doctorate_%28PhD%29/Salary#by_Job[/url] and [url]http://www.payscale.com/research/US/People_with_Doctor_of_Medicine_%28MD%29_Degrees/Salary[/url] ), yet they are in school for the same amount of time and have arguably the same amount of experience. I would argue that most of the inherent cost of insurance and healthcare in the US system is not something that could be 'treated' through UHC, but rather needs to be fixed through overhauling the existing gaps and failures endemic to the healthcare profession.