Does a person who votes democrat have the right to say they support gun ownership

[kennybs plbg]

I think those of you who say "hey republicans, do whatever you want with the environment, take my social security and bet it on the stock market, start as many wars as you want, lie to me in the media and take away freedom of speech......as long as you dont take my guns away...you are a FOOL.

maybe you could post some facts after all your research you've done and give examples, to help us better understand of course.

thanks in advance, kenny b

 

[TBT]

No.

If you vote democrat you might personally agree with gun rights, but you aren't "supporting gun rights". You've chosen other issues to use your vote for.

I'm Libertarian, so I'm not even too hot on the Republican party. I think the Libertarian is the only party that "fully" supports gun rights.

 

[Double Naught Spy]

Does a person who votes democrat have the right to say they support gun ownership

Well, first the answer is YES. The right is provided by the first amendment.

Suggesting folks don't have such a right is just plain poorly reasoned. Such reasoning assumes that the only relevant topic about which we should determine how we vote would be the topic guns. Of course there are single issue voters out there, but those are largely people who either don't know, don't try to know, or don't have the ability to know or comprehend broad picture politics.

Many folks vote on issues other than just guns. For many folks, the values or topics they support are not all represented by any one party. There are Republicans that are environmentalists, Democrates that are right to lifers, etc. As such, no matter which party people vote for, that party has little chance of satifying all aspects of each person's perspectives on every issue.

Heck, I am a pro choice environmentalist that is a gun owner that supports cap. punishment.

 

[Tamara]

gb_in_ga,

This part of the suburban Atlanta metro area, for instance, is very pro-gun, and the next town out (Kennesaw) is noted for having an ordinance requiring all households to have a gun (sufficient loopholes for those who shouldn't or who object, though).

Ah, May-retta and East Snob County; home of le Poulet Gran. That's my old hometown, smack in the middle of Newt Gingrich and Bob Barr territory; the kind of place where Larry MacDonald was their idea of a Democrat. It don't get much "redder" than that.

 

[dolanp]

Unfortunately it's no black and white world we live in. Everything is shades of gray. I disagree with the Democrats on many issues such as gun control and social services, but I also disagree with the Republicans on many issues regarding ideas of authoritarian morality. Whomever I vote for, I am compromising my beliefs. You just have to vote for the candidate that lines up with your beliefs best, but it's virtually impossible to get someone who agrees with you 100%. I voted for the Libertarian candidate in the last election simply because I agreed with him more on many issues and wanted to give them some extra votes (because I live in Texas, it was virtually guaranteed to go red). As a pragmatist, if I had lived in Ohio (for example), I would have voted Republican probably.

So the answer is yes of course they can complain. The more Democrats that support gun rights and voice those concerns the better for all of us, in fact.

 

[Garand Illusion]

Although currently a registered republican, I also struggle a bit with the issues. To some extent I just look at which issues are most in danger, and vote based on those.

Personally, I agree with the democrats on a number of their agenda items, like some kind of universal health care and keeping abortion legal (totally against abortion, but think the governmnet you stay out of it).

I'm more in terms with the republicans for matters on defense, handling of the economy in general, and the environment (I am an environmentalist, BTW, but the democratic feel-good "leave it alone and don't touch and get raw materials from elsewhere in the world" just doesn't fly).

I really wanted to vote against Bush this last election because of what I think was purposeful twisting of facts about Iraq to take us to war there (though most of us knew WMD was secondary to the real agenda anyway) but in the end I just couldn't bring myself to push the button for Mr. Kerry.

If the democrats had nominated someone just a little more moderate, or didn't seem so hell bent on undoing everything we have managed to do right in Iraq, I imagine Mr. Bush would be at home in Texas right now.

 

[mvpel]

We already have universal health care - emergency rooms are required to provide treatment to anyone who needs it, regardless of their ability to pay.

 

[Garand Illusion]

We already have universal health care - emergency rooms are required to provide treatment to anyone who needs it, regardless of their ability to pay.

True ... and it works fairly well for the homeless or otherwise destitute. While it doesn't give them any preventative health care, it does help with life threatening emergencies. And then when they get the huge bill -- they just ignore it. Nothing to lose.

If you're middle class and between jobs, or a private business owner who's temporarily lost his insurance ... well, you still get the minimal health care to save your life. And then then bills come. So you either take bankruptcy or spend years killing yourself paying them back. Most have to do the former.

So one way or the other -- either via taxes or increased fees because of delinquent account -- we end up paying for universal health care anyway (the $$ to pay off the bills of people who are homeless or go bankrupt doesn't just come out of the sky) so why not do it in a way that doesn't make middle class people take bankruptcy? A HUGE percentage of bankruptcies are based around medical bills.

And take a look at medicare/medicaid -- many times more efficient than any private insurance. The doctor's just don't like it because it limits how many millions of dollars they can make.

 

[Rich Lucibella]

And take a look at medicare/medicaid -- many times more efficient than any private insurance.

Garand-
I'm gonna need a source on that one. My background is health care admin; including a stint with Medicare and a career in private health insurance. NO WAY do government programs provide health care more efficiently than the private sector.
Rich

 

[gb_in_ga]

Tamara:

"Ah, May-retta and East Snob County; home of le Poulet Gran."

Yep, that's it! The home of the one and only Big Chicken, from whence all directions originate! It may be your old home town, but it is now my new one!

 

[thelast2]

And take a look at medicare/medicaid -- many times more efficient than any private insurance.

I think this is a common misconception and like Rich said gonna need some proof on this one. You go to the hospital with your medicaid/medicare card sure you will get all the services you need. But what happens when you start getting the bills? You end up in an arguing match between medicare/medicaid and your insurance company is what happens because neither wants to foot the bill. Private insurance in my expierence is far better as you know what your getting when you sign up for it, that is as long as you read the terms and conditions which most people dont seem to do. My grandfather has gone thru this same crap and even after several years in some cases he still cant get the problems resolved, or should I say my mother cant get them resolved as she is the one who handles all of finances as he is no longer able.

 

[mvpel]

If you're middle class and between jobs, or a private business owner who's temporarily lost his insurance ... well, you still get the minimal health care to save your life. And then then bills come. So you either take bankruptcy or spend years killing yourself paying them back. Most have to do the former.

And why is health care so expensive? Partly because of billions of dollars worth of fiscal drag imposed by government regulation and lawyers.

 

[tyme]

Unfortunately it's no black and white world we live in. Everything is shades of gray.

That philosophy results in 95% of all political policy screw-ups, and unfortunately we have to clean them all up sooner or later. If the only way to fix certain things is revolution, we ought to take those "grey" issues a lot more seriously, figuring out the black and white sides to each before we act on them.

 

[gb_in_ga]

mvpel:

"And why is health care so expensive? Partly because of billions of dollars worth of fiscal drag imposed by government regulation and lawyers."

You are 100% correct right there. Most people don't know that the healthcare industry is one of the most heavily regulated industries in the nation already -- if not the most heavily regulated industry. It is true, it is true! I get this from a reputable inside source -- my wife, who is an executive in the healthcare industry. Take away the government interference, and get torts under control, and you'll see private health care (which is the decent kind, not that socialistic dung that the universalists want to cram down our throats) costs plumet, both to society as a whole and to the individual consumer of health care services. Granted, government interference and tort isn't the only reason for high healthcare costs, but it is the lion's share.

 

[Doerdie]

Yes, they do, but no, they shouldn't! Can't get any clearer than that.

 

[Real Gun]

Yes, they do, but no, they shouldn't! Can't get any clearer than that.

I would object to that reasoning, because a legislator should ideally do the "right thing" rather than simply be a party animal. That is what is wrong with the Senate and right with the House. Couple a different culture with the more granular representation by the House, and you will see more people in the House than in the Senate either voting their conscience or listening to their constituents. Senators (2 per State) are affected by big cities while many House members are not, when representing "flyover country".

 

[Garand Illusion]

I'm gonna need a source on that one. My background is health care admin; including a stint with Medicare and a career in private health insurance. NO WAY do government programs provide health care more efficiently than the private sector.

Need a source? Isn't it enough that I said it! You've got to learn to TRUST what you read on the internet .

Well ... I don't mean to hijack the thread ... but what the heck.

medicare cost effectiveness

Although I've been out of the biz for about 8 years now, I spent a lot of years at a medical managment company. At that time the number most frequently circulated was that if private insurance were providing the same level of insurance company to the people on Medicare (i.e. old people who see the doctor a lot) it would cost better than 33% more (more than a third).

Of course, we found Medicare annoying because of their rules and because of their limitations on charges. We even considered turning away Medicare, but there are just too many people out there on it and it was still profitable -- just not as profitable as private. But it's those rules and the lack of overhead (insurance companies spend a lot of $$ paying commissions and investors and etc.) that makes Medicare work so well.

BTW, to show you the kind of $$ Dr.'s are used to making for their 10 minute appointments -- we were primarily a family practice organization, which is the least paying field, and all of our Dr.'s had a minimum base salary of $100,000 plus 1 to 2 times that in yearly bonuses. Most were averaging about $300 k a year. Our specialists were generally in the $500 k range -- and like I said, ours was not the most profitable.

Of course ... all of our doctors had college loans equal to the first house mortgage for most of us, but at that salary I could afford a 2nd house payment.

You go to the hospital with your medicaid/medicare card sure you will get all the services you need. But what happens when you start getting the bills? You end up in an arguing match between medicare/medicaid and your insurance company is what happens because neither wants to foot the bill. Private insurance in my expierence is far better as you know what your getting when you sign up for it, that is as long as you read the terms and conditions which most people dont seem to do.

ROFLMAO. I'm assuming this is a joke? I have about the best insurance of anybody I know, and anytime I have more than an office visit I end up on the phone for a week trying to get something paid or find out why it was rejected. Sometimes I just end up sending off a check for charges I know should be covered, but it's not a lot of $$ and it's just easier to pay than keep fighting and/or go into collections.

 

[Garand Illusion]

You are 100% correct right there. Most people don't know that the healthcare industry is one of the most heavily regulated industries in the nation already -- if not the most heavily regulated industry. It is true, it is true! I get this from a reputable inside source -- my wife, who is an executive in the healthcare industry. Take away the government interference, and get torts under control, and you'll see private health care (which is the decent kind, not that socialistic dung that the universalists want to cram down our throats) costs plumet, both to society as a whole and to the individual consumer of health care services. Granted, government interference and tort isn't the only reason for high healthcare costs, but it is the lion's share.

From my experience, our worst expenses were in getting insurance companies to pay up. We weren't that large of a management company, but we generally had better than 2 million in accounts payable.

BTW -- I hope it didn't sound like I was in favor of a totally socialist system. From my experience (none of it direct) these don't work all that great either. I'm just in favor of some kind of disaster coverage for everybody, because I've seen a lot of good people ruined by a temporary loss of insurance.

We get unemployment when we're unemployed against our will, it would be nice if we got some kind of temporary emergency medical coverage (I konw we get Cobra, but it's damn expensive).

My .02. I could be wrong. My wife says it's happened before.

 

[Rich Lucibella]

Garand-
No, you are not sounding "socialist" at all. It's a minor side issue that I took you up on regarding efficiency of Public vs Private Medicine.

Your reference cite is deja vu! Johns Hopkins is my MPH alma mater. It's where I developed my ideas about free market vs public sector health care. In any case, last time I checked, Medicare was running at 22+% overhead for claims and admin (hard costs only) vs 18% private sector (much of which is taken up with Govt Mandated Records)...we ran at 12% and were considered to be walking on water.

Move health care completely into the private sector and you know what you get? No insurance companies. No govt. Just Free Market Providers meshing with Free to Choose consumers.....it's called Managed Care Competition (at least it was before it was bastardized by government regulation.)

Contrary to popular belief, Competitive Prepaid Health Care doesn't result in denial of service across the board; it results in efficient, aggressive medicine. Why? Because the disease process does not lend itself to cheaper modalities if left untreated....it becomes geometrically MORE expensive. The incentive in a properly incentivised Free Market Health System is on prevention, early detection and aggressive treatment.

Medicare/Medicaid Fee for Service at $40 per visit? You gotta push 'em thru. See 15 patients per hour. Paid by the service? You gotta increase the visits and hospital days to increase your income.

God, I could go on for days on this....mercifully, I won't.
Rich

 

[Derius_T]

NH YANKEE Wrote:

I realize a paroled serial killer cannot be a law enforcement officer it is just a comparision

Why not? A known traitor, who knowingly violated the UCMJ, gave aid and comfort to the enemy in a time of WAR, and lied under oath to the US Senate, was able to become a senator and run for president.....go figure.


I couldn't resist......