Health Insurance: "Shart Term" aka "Junk" Insurance

[Alan]

So take away one.... take away the other.... take away both.. increase regulations on who can buy... on who can own.... DO SOMETHING!

I'm not arguing the legal ownership of guns - I'm arguing the killing and the appropriateness of the "assault weapons" used to do that killing! You seem to be more worried about the guns than the people that are dying.

No, I'm worried about our government using its force to infringe on something the Constitution clearly forbade it from doing in hopes of pacifying those of you who don't realize that the real problem is people willing to commit violence against another.

I am very much concerned about people who are killed by murderous thugs and mentally unbalanced people. Very little of that is done with the 'assault weapons' everyone has an opinion of. All the talk of "assault weapon" bans will have next to no effect on potential victims, only on those who think they've made a difference by subverting themselves to more government authority than it was ever designed to wield.

[happystuff]

No, I'm worried about our government using its force to infringe on something the Constitution clearly forbade it from doing in hopes of pacifying those of you who don't realize that the real problem is people willing to commit violence against another.

The government already does this in sooooo many ways. But, sticking with guns and considering the era of the Constitution, I have no issues with citizens legally owning ball and powder rifles which - my guess is - was the definition of 'gun" in the Constitution. (or whatever the proper name was for those types of guns of the period in which the Constitution was written- lol)

I am very much concerned about people who are killed by murderous thugs and mentally unbalanced people. Very little of that is done with the 'assault weapons' everyone has an opinion of. All the talk of "assault weapon" bans will have next to no effect on potential victims, only on those who think they've made a difference by subverting themselves to more government authority than it was ever designed to wield.

First - tell that to the victims and the families of the victims who have died by these weapons. Ordinary citizens do not need military grade or other "assault weapons" and if banning them means 1 less person killed, well that is a "next to no effect" that I am in favor of.

But, aside from the ban of "assault weapons", why the resistance to increased and better background checks, longer waiting periods, required training, etc. for gun ownership? Cars are required to be registered at the time of purchase and re-registered annually. Why not do the same for guns?

Why aren't those who are so concerned about owning guns, more concerned about creating the rules and regulations to keep the killings from happening - instead of worrying about losing their own gun(s)? I'm saddened that some people value their gun more than the life of someone else.

[Alan]

But, sticking with guns and considering the era of the Constitution, I have no issues with citizens legally owning ball and powder rifles which - my guess is - was the definition of 'gun" in the Constitution. (or whatever the proper name was for those types of guns of the period in which the Constitution was written- lol).

Most people err in thinking the 2nd Amendment gives citizens the right to own and bear arms but it doesn't, that is a natural right. It forbids the government from infringing upon that natural right so I'm not sure how anyone can say they meant to limit it to a specific type of weapon.

But, aside from the ban of "assault weapons", why the resistance to increased and better background checks, longer waiting periods, required training, etc. for gun ownership?

I think mainly because part of so many changes under consideration are designed as a backdoor to taking away rights, such as attempts to forbid those people prescribed medical marijuana from ever legally owning a weapon, or by creating a database of gun owners which can then be used against them. Collectively they really stretch the integrity of that whole "shall not be infringed" thing.

Why aren't those who are so concerned about owning guns, more concerned about creating the rules and regulations to keep the killings from happening

Such as laws against killing people? Yeah, maybe we should have more of those. But honestly, I'm not so much concerned about owning guns, I'm more concerned about someone else telling me I can't, and backing that up with government force.

[happystuff]

Most people err in thinking the 2nd Amendment gives citizens the right to own and bear arms but it doesn't, that is a natural right. It forbids the government from infringing upon that natural right so I'm not sure how anyone can say they meant to limit it to a specific type of weapon.

I think mainly because part of so many changes under consideration are designed as a backdoor to taking away rights, such as attempts to forbid those people prescribed medical marijuana from ever legally owning a weapon, or by creating a database of gun owners which can then be used against them.

Such as laws against killing people? Yeah, maybe we should have more of those.[/COLOR]

Well, I don't see it as an err, but it is a mute point. What I did take from what you wrote was: "Oh, we can't do that because I'll be in a data base; but it's okay that someone else died."

And, if current laws don't seem to be working - again - why such objections to TRYING to fix what is obviously broken??? Try something else! Again, DO SOMETHING!

No offense, but all I'm reading above is "fear" of so much... while people die.

And with that, I've said about all I have to say in this thread.

Have a blessed and good night, all!

[Teacher Terry]

I totally agree Happy.

[flowerseverywhere]

Happy, it really sucks and many people are on multiple medications myself included. A fourth of our gross income now goes for HI.

im sorry to hear that. When good people work their whole lives, try to do the right things yet are charged exorbitant rates it is criminal.

The whole insulin debacle makes makes me so livid. Why do US citizens pay 10x more is beyond me. Some resort to rationing which leads to expensive and life threatening complications.

https://www.webmd.com/diabetes/news/...in-brutal-bind

[jp1]

I know. I shook my head at that too.

No kidding. The thought that we now have the birther in chief is mind boggling.

[Teacher Terry]

I am really looking forward to getting off my state retiree insurance when my husband is 65 in 4 years. Then we should pay half of what we do. Putting him on the ACA and me using Medicare wouldn’t save us any money either.

[JaneV2.0]

And all those medications are finding their way--second hand--into our waterways, which bodes ill for the planet.

I've said before that I don't understand Americans' insatiable appetite for pharmaceuticals, most of which are unnecessary or dangerous. But I see endless slick commercials full of smiling, active people promising instant cures for everything from restless legs to death, and then I understand that it's all marketing--while the litany of possible/probable side effects drones on in the background. "Cancer may occur" is one that always gets me--wish I could remember which relatively minor complaint is worth risking cancer over. More evidence of greed and disappearing critical thinking skills.

[bae]

And, if current laws don't seem to be working - again - why such objections to TRYING to fix what is obviously broken??? Try something else! Again, DO SOMETHING!

"DO SOMETHING" is not a rational basis for formulating public policy.