Having observed the Republican tsunami two weeks ago, and the resulting disarray in the Democratic Party, Al Gore has announced to the world that he has found a solution to Democrat Party woes – and the solution is … (ahem) … Al Gore.
Well throw me in the briar patch. Al Gore is sounding and acting like a candidate again. What a wonderful thought! The prospect of a Bush-Gore rematch in 2004 is nothing less than delicious. Hitlary as Gore's running mate (rumored, but unlikely) is icing on the cake.
Every campaign needs a theme, and Gore's apparently will be to veer to the left and win votes by offering Americans something that all-too-many of them can't refuse. Just tell them that the government will provide them with more security and make their lives easier if the people will just agree to give up a little more economic and personal freedom.
Wow, what a deal!
Gore unveiled his first major policy initiative last week in a Manhattan speech. It's time, Gore feels, to realize that long-held dream of good Democrats everywhere – the dream of socialized medicine. Now, Big Al isn't quite dense enough to actually use the "S" word. He knows that many Americans still aren't exactly comfortable with the idea of socialism, so he's calling it a "single-payer system" – the same system that is currently wreaking havoc with Canadians.
The single payer under Gore's plan would, of course, be none other than the Imperial Federal Government. The rules for seeking medical services would be set by government. The availability of medical services would be set by government, as would the price to be paid. Doctors, nurses and other practitioners would become virtual government employees. Their every move would be choreographed by bureaucrats.
No doubt Gore's plan would contain that wonderful little provision we saw in Hitlary's ... jail time for anyone who accepts payment for any medical care delivered outside of the system. Come on, folks. Wake up and smell the manifesto. Let's call this what it is. When the government controls the delivery system and the pricing for any commodity, including medical care, you have socialism.
The ultimate goal, of course, is to increase dependency on government. Once Gore's socialized medicine plan is in place and operating, Democrats would be able to frighten people just before Election Day with a threat that if the evil Republicans win "you will have to pay your own medical bills again"
We don't need a single-payer system. There are simple solutions here – but these solutions are not popular with politicians because they reduce, rather than increase, dependency on government.
Here are just a few easy examples to show you how easy reform would really be:
First, eliminate insurance mandates. Any individual should be able to buy a health-insurance policy to cover themselves and their family without having to pay for coverage of medical costs associated with alcohol or drug abuse. In many states, the law prohibits the sale of any health insurance without that coverage. Why should you have to buy coverage for drug and alcohol abuse if you don't drink and you don't do drugs?
The same situation exists with maternity costs. Health insurance would be considerably cheaper if you didn't have to buy coverage for the ordinary and expected costs of pregnancy and childbirth. See if you can find such a policy. In many states, no way.
It needs to be said here that ordinary pregnancy expenses shouldn't be covered by any normal insurance policy. They're insurance policies, not medical payment plans. Insurance policies cover unexpected losses, not planned ones. Pregnancy is a self-inflicted condition. Simply put, if you can't afford the ordinary costs associated with pregnancy and childbirth, you can't afford to have and raise a child.
Another idea – make all premiums paid for health insurance tax deductible. Your employer deducts those costs, why shouldn't you? There is actually a reason for this: Politicians don't like independent voters. They want you to be dependent on someone else – your employer or the government – for medical care. People with their own policies have a nasty little independent streak that is unnerving to politicians.
Third – medical savings accounts. These are legal now, but only on a limited basis. All of us should be allowed to set aside pre-tax dollars – $4,000 a year for a family would be appropriate – to cover medical costs. As funds build up, they could be transferred, again with no tax consequences, to that person's retirement account. Again, the problem is that this plan would empower individuals. Politicians don't like empowered individuals.
There are always private-sector solutions to grand government spending programs. Trouble is, none of these private-sector solutions increase dependency on government. Until Americans start caring as much about freedom as they do security, these private-sector solutions will stay in the shadows.
i dont understand the argument...i in fact am a democrat and a socialist, but not all democrats are socialists...can someone please clearly explain to me how this could be true? i mean, i could see it the other way, all socialists are democrats, cause that makes sense, but huh?
Yeah, I rather see the point about gun control being a bad idea. Not because I think it's a person's right but because of what happened during Prohibition. And i've heard people say that if they were allowed to have drugs/alcohol they wouldn't want to, because half the fun is being rebellious.
Joey - and Pie too, and anyone else this might pertain to - I still think that if you were more courteous, even just tactful, people would listen to you more. So it's not like your helping these causes that you seem to stand for so strongly; in fact, people might get the idea that all libertarians are like you and NOT support your dear party.
You're always moaning about "liberal propaganda;" I just hope you realize how much reactionary propaganda you are creating.
quote: Criminals - who don't follow the law because they're, hello, criminals ...have guns, knives, etc.
Ok?
Nope, not OK. Criminals don't follow the law because they feel they have to to survive or because they think a certain law is stupid or they don't believe what they're doing is wrong or because they have nothing else to live for...etc. Just saying you could have phrased that better, like, without the generalization. (Generalizations used in an argument often make the argument itself irrelevant because ... well, its wrong. There's no such thing as an accurate generalization.)
You didn't answer rockrgirl's question... What do you have to say about monopolies? Because that is one of the biggest problems with capitalism. Do you think the government should stay out of it even then? Even when the choices that capitalism is supposed to guarantee are undermined by the capitalist system itself?
(long pause - I KNOW there was something else I wanted to say!)
Okay, good, now I remember my REAL point. My problem with capitalism is that it gives some people an unfair advantage over others. Those born in poverty have a hell of a worse chance to make it in a capitalistic society, because they don't have any capital to invest. And it's not like it's their fault. Especially if the public education sucks, and they can't go to a better school, so they're forced to be ignorant of ways to make money. Whereas some people get to live off their parents' money all their lives, never having to really work for a living. So, here's an idea that is just a baby being formed inside my head: maybe when people die all their assets should be dumped into a national pool and then when someone is born or something (like I told you, this is just a babe, I haven't worked it all out just yet) maybe when they become an adult only that probably wouldn't work too well, but anyway, they would get part of it, so everyone gets to start out even. Then you let capitalism do its thing, and it would really be capitalism because it would be fair and free, and isn't that the point? >>>Right now people are trapped by their economic standing.<<<
Rocker, why ban something on law-abiding, everyday citizens?
I mean, did you not read about what happened when the U.S. government banned alcohol?
When they banned it, the black market (which is created when things are made illegal) spurned mobsters, gangsters, corruption, etc.
You said you wanted to try to make it harder for criminals to obtain guns and by doing that, you propose getting rid of all the guns.
Okay, well, again, I refer back to common sense.
You can try to control, restrict, register every gun on the planet, but you'll still HAVE MORE GUNS.
Why? Because a massive black market will be created, and the people obtaining those guns will more than likely be criminals.
Okay, so guns should be taken up just because you say so?
At least give an effort in your argument.
Do you realize how bad you would sound if I were to quote you in one of my articles? Being fair of course, I would give your side, and then present all these facts, figures and the pro/cons of guns.
"where did all the school shooters get thier guns?" For Columbine, I believe illegally. For the rest, probably from the closet. (duh). Anyhow, care to inform me as to why 80+% of school shootings occur in states with strict firearm control?
"Umm ... perhaps my argument that citizens shouldn't have guns is reason enough? " There was an argument? I must have missed that.
"Just look at this way: if all the drugs in the world were legal and available at the drugstore, would more people be drug users? That's what I'm trying to say about guns." There is nothing wrong with being a "gun user". More guns in the hands of citizens reduces crime, as criminals are deterred, and not willing to risk the threat of death. Upon purchasing a firearm, a person does not automatically become a killer, guns do not turn people into raging lunatics. Future criminals can buy at the gun shop, yes, but if they cannot due to gun control, the black market is still there, and presumably flourishing as the drug buisness has.
quote: "Guns should be HARDER to get. " Any reason why?
Umm ... perhaps my argument that citizens shouldn't have guns is reason enough? Why do you think I said that?
quote: "Sure, some will leak through black markets " Just like "some" drugs leak through the black market, I presume. Problem is, they are never to difficult for criminals to get.
Look, I can't solve black market problems. It IS a problem, and saying it's never going to be any different doesn't really solve anything, does it?
Just look at this way: if all the drugs in the world were legal and available at the drugstore, would more people be drug users? That's what I'm trying to say about guns.
"Sure, some will leak through black markets " Just like "some" drugs leak through the black market, I presume. Problem is, they are never to difficult for criminals to get.
quote:Criminals - who don't follow the law because they're, hello, criminals ...have guns, knives, etc.
Ok?
Now if the citizens can't defend themselves, who does this benefit?
???
Remember, criminals don't follow the law - they break it - always remember that.
Guns should be HARDER to get. It's that simple. Sure, some will leak through black markets or something, but if they are really difficult to get, less criminals will be able to get them.
quote: As a matter of fact, that's exactly where we're going (total government control).
The federal government, state governments ...are HELL BENT on taking away citizens' guns.
Why?
Not because "more guns equal more crime."
It's all a control thing; the the more power politicians have over us, the more CONTROL they have.
And if we as Americans don't stop them from ABUSING that POWER, then well, we'll just end up slaves.
See where I'm getting at here?
In fact, John Ashcroft has FEMA camps all over the U.S. for "enemy combatants."
In other words, whoever goes against the government and their assinine "war on terror," the government (if they wanted), could put citizens ...U.S. citizens - in these "camps."
No lawyer. No trial.
Not even a PHONE call.
See, this is the exact thing Jefferson talked about.
EXACTLY.
Whatever, Joey. Just because I advocate gun control doesn't mean I want total govornment control.
quote: And despite what the liberals spout off, the Framers did expect guns to be more powerful than the armies the militias were fighting.
Hello! The whole object of war is to have as many resources as possible.
Our troops in Iraq aren't using Muskets.
So the Framers knew about the up-to-date types of weapons the law would allow.
Hold on ... where did we get onto war here? I'm talking about civilians.
Governments make laws banning guns, restricting them, etc.
Ok?
Criminals - who don't follow the law because they're, hello, criminals ...have guns, knives, etc.
Ok?
Now if the citizens can't defend themselves, who does this benefit?
???
Remember, criminals don't follow the law - they break it - always remember that.
As a matter of fact, that's exactly where we're going (total government control).
The federal government, state governments ...are HELL BENT on taking away citizens' guns.
Why?
Not because "more guns equal more crime."
It's all a control thing; the the more power politicians have over us, the more CONTROL they have.
And if we as Americans don't stop them from ABUSING that POWER, then well, we'll just end up slaves.
See where I'm getting at here?
In fact, John Ashcroft has FEMA camps all over the U.S. for "enemy combatants."
In other words, whoever goes against the government and their assinine "war on terror," the government (if they wanted), could put citizens ...U.S. citizens - in these "camps."
No lawyer. No trial.
Not even a PHONE call.
See, this is the exact thing Jefferson talked about.
EXACTLY.
And despite what the liberals spout off, the Framers did expect guns to be more powerful than the armies the militias were fighting.
Hello! The whole object of war is to have as many resources as possible.
Our troops in Iraq aren't using Muskets.
So the Framers knew about the up-to-date types of weapons the law would allow.
quote: The mainstream media doesn't tell you about the stories of homeowners using guns to scare off intruders; the mainstream media doesn't tell you that the reason many robberies, burglaries and murders are avoided is because the people being attacked are armed.
Seriously; do some research - I know liberals can't stand facts, but just three ounces of common sense could tell you that GUNS EQUAL LESS CRIME.
If criminals didn't have guns in the first place, the people they attack wouldn't need guns as defense. Your solution is to give more guns to more people, who in turn could use them for more crimes. Where is the sense in that?
quote: "The strongest reason for people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." -- Thomas Jefferson
To bad citizens in countries like Cuba, China and Hitler-led Germany didn't have a gun.
Just think of what history would turn out to be like.
Do you think anybody in America right now is going to implement a Cuban/Chinese/Hitler Germany-style govornment here? No. Maybe if that were the case, we'd need guns. If we were being led off to containment camps, we'd possibly have a use for a gun. Then again, if several men with guns come to your house and try to take you away, are you with your one gun going to be able to stop them? You'll just be killed. The key to resisting a bad govornment is not private weaponry alone - it's closer to organized militias and the like. Until militias are necessary, guns aren't necessary.
In fact, the entire reason there IS so much crime, muggings, killings, rapings, etc. is that there aren't enough able-bodied, responsible citizens CARRYING guns.
Yes, some guns are used for specific purposes.
However, guns were intended to keep intruders, thieves, rapists, potential murders and other criminals away.
Ask the six million Jews who died in the Holocaust if they would have gone to concentration camps willingly if they have guns.
Logically, you can't ask them now, but you can basically incur the reasoning.
Ask the people in China about their willingness to be put under complete government control assuming they had assault rifles, pistols or machine guns.
Or what about Australia? Funny how violent crime rates, or rape, murder, burglaries go up when the number of gun laws and/or gun bans go up.
You put no logic in your argument at all.
You know why Al Gore lost support in 2000? Because he was too big of a gun grabber.
(Gore actually admits that; oh, and the whole thing about banning automobiles)
Notice in the 2002 campaigns, you had Democrats in ads "standing firm and tall on the Second Amendment."
Notice how every major event, there's always a mass rush of legislation getting passed to further CRIPPLE Constitutional rights?
1) Oklahoma City bombing, 1995
Result: Clinton's "anti-terrorism" laws; biggest feature: more waiting periods and restrictions on guns
2) Columbine
Result: Even MORE gun control laws
3) Washington, D.C. sniper attacks
Result: New Jersey now in process of actually banning guns in certain parts of the state; Maryland citizens being asked to "spy" and turn in neighbors suspected of having illegal arms
It's been said that a "liberal is a conservative who hasn't been mugged."
Sounds about right. I mean, if you just made a slight effort in researching the facts, instead of jumping on the liberal propaganda bandwagon, you and maybe people like Dante would grasp a little bit of reality.
The mainstream media doesn't tell you about the stories of homeowners using guns to scare off intruders; the mainstream media doesn't tell you that the reason many robberies, burglaries and murders are avoided is because the people being attacked are armed.
Seriously; do some research - I know liberals can't stand facts, but just three ounces of common sense could tell you that GUNS EQUAL LESS CRIME.
"The strongest reason for people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." -- Thomas Jefferson
To bad citizens in countries like Cuba, China and Hitler-led Germany didn't have a gun.
Just think of what history would turn out to be like.
What is the point to owning a hand gun? They're OBVIOUSLY made to kill people. Owning a rifle for hunting is one thing, but owning a gun that is made specifically for the purpose of harming someone (a human) is not right. I mean, i don't think that many people really need a gun to fend off evil villans trying to rob them... and the argumant about needing them on the streets is ridiculous. If we do our best to keep guns OFF the streets, we won't have to worry about carrying guns to 'protect ourselves' from other guns. That's just what i think anyway. ~Becca
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." - Second Amendment
The Michigan Militia is neither well-regulated nor necessry for our security, it is likely more of a danger than a protection.
The framers never imagined weapons that could cause so much death on such a regualr basis.
Heck, it took people so long to reload that a typical drive-by shooting would be impossible.
The modern situation calls for a modern interpretation. It was one thing to stockpile weapons at Concord to fend off the British and provide instant defense of our borders (which the National Gaurd does now) but another thing to allow every lunatic to own a gun claiming it as his "right".
Taking into consideration "well regulated", "necessary for security", as well as the prerequisite of a militia, uninhibited gun ownership doesn't fit the bill. Nor does even what the NRA has in mind.
The intent was to provide a fighting force capable of national defense and in times of need, to fend off the current government in favor of a new one.
Personal, independent use was not protected, especially given current capabilities.
quote: Uh, I thought a militia WAS a group of private citizens?
Grr ... don't be so word-picky. Of course a militia is made up of citizens, but it's an organized GROUP with a PURPOSE. Is that the situation today? No, of course not.
quote: People own guns because it's their Second Amendment right.
Depending on how you are interpreting that amendment.
quote: I'm not an economics expert, but I sure as heck know that if it weren't for capitalism, YOU and I wouldn't have the wide array of choices to choose from to buy food, or medicine, or computers.
You're the one who likes Ayn Rand, aren't you? Have you read Atlas Shrugged? If you have, how do you feel about the Equalization of Opportunity Bill - in other words, how do you feel about monopolies?
Topics 
