Guns must be listed on your next tax return (2010)

[STANG RED]

Verified on SNOPES . . .

http://www.snopes.com/politics/guns/blairholt.asp

If you have a gun, I hope it isn't registered!

Senate Bill SB-2099 will require us to put on our 2009 1040 federal tax form all guns that you have or own. It will require fingerprints and a tax of $50 per gun.
This bill was introduced on Feb.. 24, 2009, by the Obama staff. BUT . . this bill will only become public knowledge 30 days after the new law becomes effective ! This is an amendment to the Internal Revenue Act o f 1986. This means that the Finance Committee has passed this without the Senate voting on it at all. Trust Obama ? ..... you must be kidding !

The full text of the IRS amendment is on the U.S. Senate homepage,U.S. Senate " href="http://www.senate.gov/>"><http://www.senate.gov/>You can find the bill by doing a search by the bill number, SB-2099.
| You know who to call; I strongly suggest you do. Please send a copy of this e-mail to every gun owner you know.|

<Text of H.R.45 as Introduced in House: Blair Holt's Firearm Licensing and Record of Sale Act of 2009 - U.S.... OpenCongress " href="http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h45/text>"><http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h45/text> |

Obama's Congress is now starting on the firearms confiscation bill. If it passes, gun owners will become criminals if you don't fully comply.

Very Important for you to be aware of a new bill HR 45 introduced into the House. This is the Blair Holt Firearm Licensing & Record of Sale Ac t of 2009.|

Even gun shop owners didn't know about this because the government is trying to fly it under the radar as a 'minor' IRS revision, and, as usuual, the 'political' lawmakers did not read this bill befre signing and approving it !

To find out about this - go to any government website and type in HR 45 or Google HR 45 Blair Holt Firearm Licensing & Record of Sales Act of 2009. You will get all the information.

Basically this would make it illegal to own a firearm - any rifle with a clip or ANY pistol unless:

-It is registered -You are fingerprinted -You supply a current Driver's License -You supply your Social Security # -You will submit to a physical & mental evaluation at any time of their choosing -Each update - change or ownership through private or public sale must be reported and costs $25 - Failure to do so you automatically lose the right to own a firearm and are subject up to a year in jail. -There is a child provision clause on page 16 section 305 stating a child-access provision. Gun must be locked and inaccessible to any child under 18. -They would have the right to come and inspect that you are storing your gun safely away from accessibility to children and fine is punishable for up to 5 yrs. in prison.

If you think this is a joke - go to the website and take your pick of many opt ions to read this. It is long and lengthy. But, more and more people are becoming aware of this. Pass the word along. Any hunters in your family pas s this along.|

This is just a "termite" approach to complete confiscation of guns and disarming of our society to the point we have no defense - chip away a little here and there until the goal is accomplished before anyone realizes it.

This is one to act on whether you own a gun or not..

<Search Results - THOMAS (Library of Congress) <http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c111:H.R.45> :

<H.R.45: Blair Holt's Firearm Licensing and Record of Sale Act of 2009 - U.S. Congress - OpenCongress <http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h45/show>

<H.R. 45: Blair Holt's Firearm Licensing and Record of Sale Act of 2009 (GovTrack.us) <http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h111-45>

Please.. copy and send this out to EVERYONE in the USA , whether you support the Right to Bear Arms or are for gun control. We all should have the right to choose.

Verified on SNOPES . . .

http://www.snopes.com/politics/guns/blairholt.asp

[BreckTxLonghorn]

The Registration is legit.

That tax forms aren't.
http://www.snopes.com/politics/guns/taxreturns.asp

[rockdale80]

Go back and read the bottom of the page you nitwits....;)

This hasnt passed.

[Phil C]

IF GUNS ARE OUTLAWED THEN ONLY OUTLAWS WILL HAVE GUNS!!

:mad:

[turbostud]

"Freedom, with their exception"

James Hetfield/Eye of the Beholder

[JasperDog94]

Originally posted by rockdale80


This hasnt passed. yet...but this is the kind of stuff that many people feared when he was elected.

[SHSBulldog00]

Originally posted by JasperDog94
yet...but this is the kind of stuff that many people feared when he was elected.

Me included!

[rockdale80]

Originally posted by SHSBulldog00
Me included!


Scared of what? Plenty of bills are introduced that gain no traction because they are ridiculous, but it is this kind of blatant disregard for anything close to the truth that excites the masses for no reason. There has not even been a co-sponsor. Are you scared of the boogeyman too? :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Confirmed on Snopes.... actually it wasnt. Quick everybody, to the storm shelter!!!!


:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :hand:

[JasperDog94]

I would still rather be proactive than reactive when it comes to this stuff.

[rockdale80]

Originally posted by JasperDog94
I would still rather be proactive than reactive when it comes to this stuff.

Understood, but because ONE guy introduces a bill that doesnt have a co-sponsor and no traction doesnt mean people should spread untruths to try to rile up the masses. There is no weight to this bill and I doubt there would be. Lighten up Francis. ;)

I just think it was funny that it was posted "verified" on Snopes...;)

[waterboy]

Verified, or unverified, it worries me that someone is actually attempting to pass this legislation. No worries, here, though......

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2318/2143763178_3aa2309d7c.jpg

:D

I don't think this legislation has much of a chance to pass anytime soon, because it would be political suicide, not to mention the legislation and the repercussions are not thought out. Can you imagine what kind of black market there would be for weapons after legislation such as this?

[JasperDog94]

It would be very similar to prohibition.

[Old Dog]

the good folks in Canada, England and of all places, Australia thought it could never happen there.........................we must remain involved and watchful!

[turbostud]

http://www.kctv5.com/2009/1001/21176439_240X180.jpg

[JasperDog94]

Just look at the health care bill that almost passed this summer without anyone reading it. We must remain watchful...of both parties.

[Farmersfan]

Originally posted by JasperDog94
Just look at the health care bill that almost passed this summer without anyone reading it. We must remain watchful...of both parties.



Of course some will accuse you of just trying to incite the masses. You know? "The sky is falling"..................:D

[turbostud]

Originally posted by Farmersfan
Of course some will accuse you of just trying to incite the masses. You know? "The sky is falling"..................:D

:D

[Farmersfan]

Originally posted by turbostud
:D



I'm not sure what is was but something DID hit me on the head when I walked to my car this morning!!!!!! Coulda' been part of the sky!!!!!

[carter08]

Originally posted by waterboy
Verified, or unverified, it worries me that someone is actually attempting to pass this legislation. No worries, here, though......

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2318/2143763178_3aa2309d7c.jpg

:D

I don't think this legislation has much of a chance to pass anytime soon, because it would be political suicide, not to mention the legislation and the repercussions are not thought out. Can you imagine what kind of black market there would be for weapons after legislation such as this?

i have no evidence to back this up, but it would not surprise me if someone has introduced similar bills in the past, regardless of whether we were under democrat or republican control.

its like the guy who introduces the bill every few years to get rid of presidential term limits. it only became a big deal with obama, but has been going on much longer.

[rockdale80]

Has anyone ever heard of the boy that cried wolf? Sooner or later the people are going to get tired of being duped into believing something that isnt true. I rather enjoy pointing out the ignorance...

[JasperDog94]

Originally posted by rockdale80
Sooner or later the people are going to get tired of being duped into believing something that isnt true. You mean like every time Obama promised that there would not be a tax increase for anyone making less than 250,000? By forcing people to pay a "fee" if they choose not to pay for health insurance, that is a tax. I know some younger folks that would rather pay for their care out of pocket. (Which in many cases ends up being less at the doctor's office because they don't have to deal with the insurance companies.)

[Gobbla2001]

I just think it's good that citizens are paying attention to what legislation etc... is being introduced by our employees...

[sinton66]

Originally posted by Gobbla2001
I just think it's good that citizens are paying attention to what legislation etc... is being introduced by our employees...

Employees, LOL. They sure don't think of themselves in that term.;)

[rockdale80]

Originally posted by JasperDog94
You mean like every time Obama promised that there would not be a tax increase for anyone making less than 250,000? By forcing people to pay a "fee" if they choose not to pay for health insurance, that is a tax. I know some younger folks that would rather pay for their care out of pocket. (Which in many cases ends up being less at the doctor's office because they don't have to deal with the insurance companies.)

Well played. Save face by changing the subject to something else untrue. This thread is right wing lunacy at its best. :D

Now get under the table and hide sheeple...

[JasperDog94]

Originally posted by rockdale80
Well played. Save face by changing the subject to something else untrue. This thread is right wing lunacy at its best. :D

Now get under the table and hide sheeple... How is what I said untrue?

FACT: Obama stated that he would not raise taxes on anyone making less than 250,000. (This was later amended to anyone jointly making 250,000. Filing as an individual the number drops to 200,000.)

FACT: The current proposal by congress would impose "fees" on anyone not wanted to purchase health insurance. That, my friend, is a tax. This is regardless of income.

So again I ask: How is what I said untrue?

[rockdale80]

Originally posted by JasperDog94
How is what I said untrue?

FACT: Obama stated that he would not raise taxes on anyone making less than 250,000. (This was later amended to anyone jointly making 250,000. Filing as an individual the number drops to 200,000.)

FACT: The current proposal by congress would impose "fees" on anyone not wanted to purchase health insurance. That, my friend, is a tax. This is regardless of income.

So again I ask: How is what I said untrue?

Fact: This thread was about guns and some completely bogus bill proposal that carried no merit that you chimed in on and said that we should all be concerned about it.

Fact: A proposal that has not passed through Congress or been signed into law that imposes a fee on people CHOOSING to not purchase or carry health insurance is not the same thing as raising taxes.

Fact: I am still required to carry auto insurance because if I get in an accident without it I could incur cost to others, but people without insurance that go to the ER are NO DIFFERENT.

Fact: You shifted gears because you looked silly by buying into idiocracy. ;)

[Pick6]

Originally posted by rockdale80

Fact: You shifted gears because you looked silly by buying into idiocracy. ;)

If anyone looks silly on these threads...oh yeah, we're suppose to have a kinder, nicer board...nvm.

[rockdale80]

Originally posted by Pick6
If anyone looks silly on these threads...oh yeah, we're suppose to have a kinder, nicer board...nvm.

Believe me when I say that you can call me any and every name in the book and it wont hurt my feelings one bit. I am not sure how I would look silly by refuting a post that was allegedly true, but hey, if you say so.

[lulu]

True or not.....guns or health care..we all need to be paying attention to what is going on. IMO:)

[Old Cardinal]

THE NOOSE IS STARTING TO TIGHTEN ON THE NECKS OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE!

Sadly, Every country that has fallen to Dictatorship in history has had its personal weapons taken away FIRST...
By a simple law passed in some obscure committee enactment!

Vote accurately in 2010, it's our only option left!

[rockdale80]

Originally posted by Old Cardinal
THE NOOSE IS STARTING TO TIGHTEN ON THE NECKS OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE!

Sadly, Every country that has fallen to Dictatorship in history has had its personal weapons taken away FIRST...
By a simple law passed in some obscure committee enactment!

Vote accurately in 2010, it's our only option left!

???

[lulu]

Originally posted by rockdale80
???

Self explanatory.....

[rockdale80]

Originally posted by lulu
Self explanatory.....

How so? It hasnt passed or even had a co-sponsor endorse this??? Im not sure where this imaginary noose came from, or how gun control equals a dictatorship. Just seems like a silly stretch to me. Calm down sheeple...

[lulu]

Originally posted by rockdale80
How so? It hasnt passed or even had a co-sponsor endorse this??? Im not sure where this imaginary noose came from, or how gun control equals a dictatorship. Just seems like a silly stretch to me. Calm down sheeple...

You really like to :stirpot:

and most of us on here are smart enough to make up our own minds about our own opinions,,,,,so just let us,,,,,humor us and we will go away. You know ,,,,like sheep to the slaughter:D

[rockdale80]

Originally posted by lulu
You really like to :stirpot:

and most of us on here are smart enough to make up our own minds about our own opinions,,,,,so just let us,,,,,humor us and we will go away. You know ,,,,like sheep to the slaughter:D

Just want to interject some sensibility into these ridiculous statements. ;)

Stirring the pot is just an added bonus.

Do you not find it laughable that there have been numerous threads that are factually inaccurate posted only because people read a forwarded email and FAIL to delve into the issue and find out what is true? I do...

[lulu]

Originally posted by rockdale80
Just want to interject some sensibility into these ridiculous statements. ;)

Stirring the pot is just an added bonus.

Do you not find it laughable that there have been numerous threads that are factually inaccurate posted only because people read a forwarded email and FAIL to delve into the issue and find out what is true? I do...

Yes I do,,,,and must admiit sometimes I get all up in it and have to slap myself into reality and research it myself. Folks get frisky fingers at times and don't check it out first.:rolleyes:

But we do need to pay closer attention to what is going on I think.

[rockdale80]

Originally posted by lulu
Yes I do,,,,and must admiit sometimes I get all up in it and have to slap myself into reality and research it myself. Folks get frisky fingers at times and don't check it out first.:rolleyes:

But we do need to pay closer attention to what is going on I think.

So what is wrong with a dash of truthiness? You know as well as I do if I came on here and posted something that preposterous I would get it from 15 different people.

[lulu]

Originally posted by rockdale80
So what is wrong with a dash of truthiness? You know as well as I do if I came on here and posted something that preposterous I would get it from 15 different people.

Let's try it,,,,:devil:

[rockdale80]

Originally posted by lulu
Let's try it,,,,:devil:

Well I dont think you have to worry about me posting something like this and insisting that there is some merit or truth to it. I am sure that sooner or later I will be wrong and I am sure that the flock will be ready to attack. :D

[lulu]

Originally posted by rockdale80
Well I dont think you have to worry about me posting something like this and insisting that there is some merit or truth to it. I am sure that sooner or later I will be wrong and I am sure that the flock will be ready to attack. :D

No doubt:1popcorn: I'll be watching,,,,,you know the D'lows not gonna cut you any slack. I'll catch your back though. I don;t like to see anyone get "donkey stomped":D

[JasperDog94]

Originally posted by rockdale80
Fact: A proposal that has not passed through Congress or been signed into law that imposes a fee on people CHOOSING to not purchase or carry health insurance is not the same thing as raising taxes.
Imposing a fee = tax

[rockdale80]

Originally posted by JasperDog94
Imposing a fee = tax

I would hardly attribute a fee on those CHOOSING not to have health insurance as a new tax on the middle class, but if it furthers your shift in discussion then keep on keeping on.

[JasperDog94]

Originally posted by rockdale80
I would hardly attribute a fee on those CHOOSING not to have health insurance as a new tax on the middle class, but if it furthers your shift in discussion then keep on keeping on. Either way you are forced to spend your money which (if passed) will break a campaign promise. But I'm sure there are those who will attempt to justify what he does no matter what.

[JasperDog94]

Speaking of campaign promises, I thought we were bringing all our troops home? What happened? What changed his mind? Or was it just empty rhetoric to get elected?

[rockdale80]

Originally posted by JasperDog94
Either way you are forced to spend your money which (if passed) will break a campaign promise. But I'm sure there are those who will attempt to justify what he does no matter what.

I am not a staunch advocate of the way things are currently going, but I will not equate a fee for those refusing to pay for healthcare on their own to new taxes for the middle class. Everyone has the option to get insurance and if you dont you pay. No different than car insurance and it isnt specific to ANY class.

Is it okay for people to opt out of insurance, get sick and go to the ER, then you and I pay for it becaused they wanted to save some money? Just a thought and the same basis for other necessities like car insurance, right?

[JasperDog94]

Originally posted by rockdale80
I am not a staunch advocate of the way things are currently going, but I will not equate a fee for those refusing to pay for healthcare on their own to new taxes for the middle class. Everyone has the option to get insurance and if you dont you pay. No different than car insurance and it isnt specific to ANY class.

Is it okay for people to opt out of insurance, get sick and go to the ER, then you and I pay for it becaused they wanted to save some money? Just a thought and the same basis for other necessities like car insurance, right? Not the same as car insurance. If you want to drive a car, then you buy insurance. You have the option of not driving if you don't want to.

[rockdale80]

Originally posted by JasperDog94
Not the same as car insurance. If you want to drive a car, then you buy insurance. You have the option of not driving if you don't want to.

That is your rebuttal? Focus on a small dissimiliarity and ignore the rest of my counterpoint? You have the option of not paying the fee by purchasing the insurance. Your choice...

[JasperDog94]

Originally posted by rockdale80
That is your rebuttal? Focus on a small dissimiliarity and ignore the rest of my counterpoint? You have the option of not paying the fee by purchasing the insurance. Your choice... Exactly. You won't have the option to opt out of the health insurance plan (even if you want to pay for your expenses out of pocket) or you will be assessed a tax.

Bottom line: You can opt out of car insurance and not pay a tax. You can opt out of health insurance, but you will pay a tax.

Apples/Oranges

[rockdale80]

Originally posted by JasperDog94
Exactly. You won't have the option to opt out of the health insurance plan (even if you want to pay for your expenses out of pocket) or you will be assessed a tax.

Bottom line: You can opt out of car insurance and not pay a tax. You can opt out of health insurance, but you will pay a tax.

Apples/Oranges

No it isnt. The idea of WHY car insurance is required is the EXACT same as why health insurance is too. The point was not whether or not you can choose to not drive.

[JasperDog94]

Originally posted by rockdale80
No it isnt. The idea of WHY car insurance is required is the EXACT same as why health insurance is too. The point was not whether or not you can choose to not drive. You can choose not to drive, therefore you pay no car insurance. Simple. The same cannot be said of health insurance.

For the record I'm in favor of everyone having health insurance. I just don't think it's the governments job to tell me what kind of coverage I should have, what doctor I can see, what medicines I can take, or if I'm allowed a particular procedure or not.

I realize that many insurance companies are already making these kinds of choices, but I get to choose my health provider. I can't choose a different government provider.

[rockdale80]

Originally posted by JasperDog94
You can choose not to drive, therefore you pay no car insurance. Simple. The same cannot be said of health insurance.

For the record I'm in favor of everyone having health insurance. I just don't think it's the governments job to tell me what kind of coverage I should have, what doctor I can see, what medicines I can take, or if I'm allowed a particular procedure or not.

I realize that many insurance companies are already making these kinds of choices, but I get to choose my health provider. I can't choose a different government provider.


Yes you can choose to not drive, but if you do then insurance is a must for the EXACT same reason health care is being mandated. That was the point I reiterated.

I am not saying I agree with the entire health bill, but insurance companies arent going to close and one government insurance will emerge as the only option so you sort of lost me with the last part of your points.

[lulu]

Originally posted by rockdale80
Yes you can choose to not drive, but if you do then insurance is a must for the EXACT same reason health care is being mandated. That was the point I reiterated.

I am not saying I agree with the entire health bill, but insurance companies arent going to close and one government insurance will emerge as the only option so you sort of lost me with the last part of your points.

You can opt out of driving so car insurance and penalty from not having it is a choice.

One cannot, however, opt out of getting sick. But they should not be mandated to nor fined for not choosing to have insurance IMO.
You are right about who ends up footing the bill. It is the privately insured.
So it's kind of a catch 22...either be forced (punished) to pay a fine/tax for not being insured for one group (their choice) ,,,,,,,or if you choose to be insured(their choice) you pay for others(that is also a fine/tax)

Look like a no win no matter what you choose. Both groups are going to get treatment.

So what is the answer? Take away a persons right to choose how he spends his money and penalize him if he chooses not to buy insurance? Over charge the person who chooses to be responsible and penalize him,,,,,,remember he has that choice also?

NO WIN

[rockdale80]

Originally posted by lulu
You can opt out of driving so car insurance and penalty from not having it is a choice.

One cannot, however, opt out of getting sick. But they should not be mandated to nor fined for not choosing to have insurance IMO.
You are right about who ends up footing the bill. It is the privately insured.
So it's kind of a catch 22...either be forced (punished) to pay a fine/tax for not being insured for one group (their choice) ,,,,,,,or if you choose to be insured(their choice) you pay for others(that is also a fine/tax)

Look like a no win no matter what you choose. Both groups are going to get treatment.

So what is the answer? Take away a persons right to choose how he spends his money and penalize him if he chooses not to buy insurance? Over charge the person who chooses to be responsible and penalize him,,,,,,remember he has that choice also?

NO WIN

Can you opt out of being sick so that your illness doesnt cost everyone else money when you end up in the ER? Didnt think so...Same principle.

[lulu]

Originally posted by rockdale80
Can you opt out of being sick so that your illness doesnt cost everyone else money when you end up in the ER? Didnt think so...Same principle.

Read the post .....Im said one cannot opt out of being sick.
Do I have to "donkey stomp ya"?:D

[rockdale80]

Originally posted by lulu
Read the post .....Im said one cannot opt out of being sick.
Do I have to "donkey stomp ya"?:D

Not referring specifically to you. ;)

[lulu]

Originally posted by rockdale80
Not referring specifically to you. ;)

Sorry:o

[Old Cardinal]

"A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government." -- George Washington

FIREARMS REFRESHER COURSE

1. "Those who hammer their guns into plows will plow for those who do not." ~Thomas Jefferson

2. Those who trade liberty for security have neither. ~John Adams
3 Free men do not ask permission to bear arms.
4 An armed man is a citizen. An unarmed man is a subject.

[sinton66]

"If worms carried pistols, birds wouldn't eat them"~ Darryl Royal

[lulu]

Originally posted by sinton66
"If worms carried pistols, birds wouldn't eat them"~ Darryl Royal

Like that one:D

[Farmersfan]

Originally posted by rockdale80
That is your rebuttal? Focus on a small dissimiliarity and ignore the rest of my counterpoint? You have the option of not paying the fee by purchasing the insurance. Your choice...




If you represent a large number of Americans then I begin to understand how someone like Obama got elected. You are stumbling around in the dark my friend.

All the people who you claim go to the ER with no insurance and walk away without paying will STILL "not pay" for their healthcare under Obama's plan. Your argument is bogus because the only one's who will be required to purchase insurance or pay Obama's penalty will be those who fall within a certain income level. The rest will still suckle at the FREEBIE tit. Obama's plan will try to offer/force healthcare on every single American but the cost will be incurred by the same ones who are paying the cost NOW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! The honest, hard working and ambitious Americans will still support the poorer, lower class citizens. The only difference is Obama is trying to make it an entitlement rather than welfare.................

[rockdale80]

Originally posted by Farmersfan
If you represent a large number of Americans then I begin to understand how someone like Obama got elected. You are stumbling around in the dark my friend.

All the people who you claim go to the ER with no insurance and walk away without paying will STILL "not pay" for their healthcare under Obama's plan. Your argument is bogus because the only one's who will be required to purchase insurance or pay Obama's penalty will be those who fall within a certain income level. The rest will still suckle at the FREEBIE tit. Obama's plan will try to offer/force healthcare on every single American but the cost will be incurred by the same ones who are paying the cost NOW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! The honest, hard working and ambitious Americans will still support the poorer, lower class citizens. The only difference is Obama is trying to make it an entitlement rather than welfare.................

So would you rather those people be sick until the last minute and pay exorbitant ER prices or utilize some preventative maintenance and medicine? As I have said, I am not 100% on board with some of the terms of the proposal, but I do think everyone should be entitled to healthcare. It is something that I equate to education. How many members of this board have utilized “social services” in their lifetime? I would be willing to be that several of you have. There are PLENTY of hard working, ambitious, and honest people that don’t have healthcare and those are the ones I am concerned with. If the lazy and useless get a free ride too, then so be it. It disgusts me that some people actually believe poor people are all lazy and worthless scum that deserves nothing because that is simply not true.
:hand:

[Farmersfan]

Originally posted by rockdale80
So would you rather those people be sick until the last minute and pay exorbitant ER prices or utilize some preventative maintenance and medicine? As I have said, I am not 100% on board with some of the terms of the proposal, but I do think everyone should be entitled to healthcare. It is something that I equate to education. How many members of this board have utilized “social services” in their lifetime? I would be willing to be that several of you have. There are PLENTY of hard working, ambitious, and honest people that don’t have healthcare and those are the ones I am concerned with. If the lazy and useless get a free ride too, then so be it. It disgusts me that some people actually believe poor people are all lazy and worthless scum that deserves nothing because that is simply not true.
:hand:




Ever hear the saying "the cream will rise to the top"? Until a plan is brought forth that forces the cream to rise to the top I will never support it. I honestly believe that 90% of welfare in this country is for people who could survive without it if they were not "ENABLED". I for one am not willing to hand over my hard earned money to help people when only 1 in 10 actually deserve it. And it disgusts ME for you to think we have to let the scum suckle at the tit right along with the needy!!!!! Put in a system to feret out the scum and I will give it 100% of my support. Obamacare does nothing but make it easier for the scum to live in this country.

[Farmersfan]

Originally posted by rockdale80
There are PLENTY of hard working, ambitious, and honest people that don’t have healthcare and those are the ones I am concerned with. [/B]



Hard working and ambitious people not having healthcare is a temporary situation. These people will find a way. Everyone goes through hard times and if you continue to work hard you get through it. Making it easy for these people to get healthcare for free is only creating a new generation of dependant people. Of course some say that is the intent of this admin.........

[turbostud]

Remember that old movie with Eddie Murphy and Dan Akroyd, Trading Places?
The Obama's remind me of the character Murphy played and how he acted when he was swept off the street into the lap of luxury.

[rockdale80]

Originally posted by Farmersfan
Hard working and ambitious people not having healthcare is a temporary situation. These people will find a way. Everyone goes through hard times and if you continue to work hard you get through it. Making it easy for these people to get healthcare for free is only creating a new generation of dependant people. Of course some say that is the intent of this admin.........

Do you consider people that have been to public school or go to public school a leech on society?

[Gobbla2001]

Originally posted by rockdale80
Do you consider people that have been to public school or go to public school a leech on society?

yes, you freakin' leeches!!!

[lulu]

For over 12 years now my husband has had no insurance. He had insurance ,,,,,had a heart attack at age 42,,,,,,,insurance ended due to change of job. His new Co. has no insurance and so we tried to get private coverage. That was going to cost us over 650.00 a month. We were told that after 5 years of no other occurences we could get affordable insurance. After 5 years we looked again and were told it had increased to 10 years. Three years ago the stent they put in the first time clogged and he had another heart attack. Self pay this time. We left the hospital owing them $45,000.00 and the Dr. $11,000. The Dr. lowered his bill to $1700.00 which is what Medicade would pay him so we were able to pay him off. The hospital lowered theirs to $8000.00
and we are still paying on that.

Now we are not poor people but we do live a very conservative life. We both have income but 600-700 dollars a month is not something we can afford in addition to our monthly bills. And we don't have credit card debt. Have one car, no toys,,,,,very reasonable mortgage.

I don't know the answers but the ONE thing that I resent is the illegals getting free care when we as tax paying citizens are working and making payments to pay our medical bills. I'm not saying illigals do not deserve care but they have a country where they belong ,,,,send them there or at least send them home with a payment plan like they do us.
Send them home and watch our economy improve. More jobs for our citizens.....less money going out for food stamps, housing, TANF, medicade to non citizens.

Ok,,,I'll get off my soap box.

Still no answers though. Just hope Obama doesn't make matters worse.

[Farmersfan]

Originally posted by rockdale80
Do you consider people that have been to public school or go to public school a leech on society?




That's not a good comparison. These are two completely different entities.
But the underlying ideas are the same. The entire education system is being held back to accommodate the slower, unambitious students. The under-acheivers! The good students are getting much lesser of an education because we are accomodating these others. Everyone is "entitled" to an education, but not EVERYONE is entitled to the same education. You get what you earn......

[rockdale80]

Originally posted by Farmersfan
That's not a good comparison. These are two completely different entities.
But the underlying ideas are the same. The entire education system is being held back to accommodate the slower, unambitious students. The under-acheivers! The good students are getting much lesser of an education because we are accomodating these others. Everyone is "entitled" to an education, but not EVERYONE is entitled to the same education. You get what you earn......


But everyone pays for public education but not everyone utilizes it. If you are in private school (have your own insurance) does it matter what goes on with public school (public option)?

[Farmersfan]

Originally posted by lulu
For over 12 years now my husband has had no insurance. He had insurance ,,,,,had a heart attack at age 42,,,,,,,insurance ended due to change of job. His new Co. has no insurance and so we tried to get private coverage. That was going to cost us over 650.00 a month. We were told that after 5 years of no other occurences we could get affordable insurance. After 5 years we looked again and were told it had increased to 10 years. Three years ago the stent they put in the first time clogged and he had another heart attack. Self pay this time. We left the hospital owing them $45,000.00 and the Dr. $11,000. The Dr. lowered his bill to $1700.00 which is what Medicade would pay him so we were able to pay him off. The hospital lowered theirs to $8000.00
and we are still paying on that.

Now we are not poor people but we do live a very conservative life. We both have income but 600-700 dollars a month is not something we can afford in addition to our monthly bills. And we don't have credit card debt. Have one car, no toys,,,,,very reasonable mortgage.

I don't know the answers but the ONE thing that I resent is the illegals getting free care when we as tax paying citizens are working and making payments to pay our medical bills. I'm not saying illigals do not deserve care but they have a country where they belong ,,,,send them there or at least send them home with a payment plan like they do us.
Send them home and watch our economy improve. More jobs for our citizens.....less money going out for food stamps, housing, TANF, medicade to non citizens.

Ok,,,I'll get off my soap box.

Still no answers though. Just hope Obama doesn't make matters worse.



Let me ask you this? If you could go back and know what you know now, could you afford the insurance? My guess is yes! 600-700 a month is a lot of money and is pretty ridiculous until you start getting 60K hospital bills. I don't pretend insurance was not out of this world and medical treatment was not out of this world but the bottom line is most people COULD afford it if they didn't consider it a luxury rather than a neccessity. That is the biggest reason for so many people being uninsured in this country. Not because it is TOO expensive but because it isn't CHEAP enough that they can get it without sacrificing elsewhere. I'm not saying this to you personally but to anyone who says they can't afford it. Perhaps is time for a second job!!!!! Or cut back on the weekend BBQ's with Beer. Or perhaps the cell phones and cable tv should go bye bye.

[Farmersfan]

Originally posted by rockdale80
But everyone pays for public education but not everyone utilizes it. If you are in private school (have your own insurance) does it matter what goes on with public school (public option)?




I think I see the connection you are trying to make. It's a huge stretch but it's there none the less. And I would not have a problem with YOUR program of "Everyone Pays" even if not everyone chooses to partake of the public option. But the problem is not everyone will pay. The same folks that are lined up at the public trough now will still be lined up at the public trough. The only thing this entire Healthcare reform program will accomplish in the long run is to improve the care of the people who never paid for their healthcare anyway and ruin the care of those who have always paid their own way.......

[rockdale80]

Originally posted by Farmersfan
I think I see the connection you are trying to make. It's a huge stretch but it's there none the less. And I would not have a problem with YOUR program of "Everyone Pays" even if not everyone chooses to partake of the public option. But the problem is not everyone will pay. The same folks that are lined up at the public trough now will still be lined up at the public trough. The only thing this entire Healthcare reform program will accomplish in the long run is to improve the care of the people who never paid for their healthcare anyway and ruin the care of those who have always paid their own way.......

And I under stand what you are saying about people riding the system and I agree but my point is plenty of people do work hard, are ambitous, and honest but cant afford insurance or healthcare.

[BleedOrange]

Originally posted by rockdale80
And I under stand what you are saying about people riding the system and I agree but my point is plenty of people do work hard, are ambitous, and honest but cant afford insurance or healthcare.

That really is unfortunate. But when did insurance become a right?? Never!!! This whole argument is silly. Also, the Gov't requiring it or you will get taxed is completely outside constitutional limits placed on our government. The comparison to car insurance is also ridiculous. The requirement for auto insurance is to protect third parties from damage you cause. It is not to protect yourself. Its called financial responsibility. Car insurance compared to healthcare insurance is apples to oranges. But of course our fearless leader is not smart enough to figure that one out and continues to make that analogy.

[lulu]

Originally posted by Farmersfan
Let me ask you this? If you could go back and know what you know now, could you afford the insurance? My guess is yes! 600-700 a month is a lot of money and is pretty ridiculous until you start getting 60K hospital bills. I don't pretend insurance was not out of this world and medical treatment was not out of this world but the bottom line is most people COULD afford it if they didn't consider it a luxury rather than a neccessity. That is the biggest reason for so many people being uninsured in this country. Not because it is TOO expensive but because it isn't CHEAP enough that they can get it without sacrificing elsewhere. I'm not saying this to you personally but to anyone who says they can't afford it. Perhaps is time for a second job!!!!! Or cut back on the weekend BBQ's with Beer. Or perhaps the cell phones and cable tv should go bye bye.

The answer to your question is no. It was not affordable to us at the time. I had just had to leave my job due to injury. Had no income for me at that time. Add the medical bills to loss of a 2-3 thousand a month pay check and we were strapped. If it had happened now...yes we could manage it. Health insurance has never been an option to me as an individual. I feel it is a necessity of life.
When it becomes avaliable 7 years from now if we are as financially sound as we are now....we'll be all over it.
Maybe you have not walked that path,,,,,but it happens. Even to responsible people. One does what is necessary to cope at the time,,,,,pick youself up,,,,,dust it off,,,,say a prayer(lots of em) and put one foot in front of the other. Travel on to the next one.

It's called LIFE;) ;) and i don't drink beer:D But hubby does or did then.

[lulu]

Originally posted by BleedOrange
That really is unfortunate. But when did insurance become a right?? Never!!! This whole argument is silly. Also, the Gov't requiring it or you will get taxed is completely outside constitutional limits placed on our government. The comparison to car insurance is also ridiculous. The requirement for auto insurance is to protect third parties from damage you cause. It is not to protect yourself. Its called financial responsibility. Car insurance compared to healthcare insurance is apples to oranges. But of course our fearless leader is not smart enough to figure that one out and continues to make that analogy. :clap:

[Farmersfan]

Originally posted by lulu
The answer to your question is no. It was not affordable to us at the time. I had just had to leave my job due to injury. Had no income for me at that time. Add the medical bills to loss of a 2-3 thousand a month pay check and we were strapped. If it had happened now...yes we could manage it. Health insurance has never been an option to me as an individual. I feel it is a necessity of life.
When it becomes avaliable 7 years from now if we are as financially sound as we are now....we'll be all over it.
Maybe you have not walked that path,,,,,but it happens. Even to responsible people. One does what is necessary to cope at the time,,,,,pick youself up,,,,,dust it off,,,,say a prayer(lots of em) and put one foot in front of the other. Travel on to the next one.

It's called LIFE;) ;) and i don't drink beer:D But hubby does or did then.




And I knew all along that you and your hubby were one of the ones who took personal responsibility for themselves. I also know sometimes it get's too hard to cope. It is unfortunate but it is, as you say, life. I whole heartedly support giving folks like you a hand when life hits them in the mouth but I guess what I am agaisnt is making it easy for folks to act like Life has hit them in the mouth. It is easy for good people to get addicted to the "Government tit" so to speak......

[rockdale80]

Originally posted by BleedOrange
That really is unfortunate. But when did insurance become a right?? Never!!! This whole argument is silly. Also, the Gov't requiring it or you will get taxed is completely outside constitutional limits placed on our government. The comparison to car insurance is also ridiculous. The requirement for auto insurance is to protect third parties from damage you cause. It is not to protect yourself. Its called financial responsibility. Car insurance compared to healthcare insurance is apples to oranges. But of course our fearless leader is not smart enough to figure that one out and continues to make that analogy.

Ok, lets get out the crayons and Big Chief tablet so we can walk through this together. You are correct in the reasoning for protecting a 3rd party from damage regarding auto insurance and health insurance is no different. If you have no insurance and get sick IT COSTS ME MONEY, much like if you crash into me without insurance IT COSTS ME MONEY. Did you follow that line of thinking? The third party being protected are the insured that continue to see rising premiums and a decline in services. Guess our fearless leader can string together a logical progression of thought and comparison and you cant.

Also, you are wrong as it is not unconstitutional to require insurance. Insurance isnt a right, but it should be. ;)

[Gobbla2001]

I think health insurance CAN be more affordable and wish it would be... I'm all for finding smart, reasonable and fair ways of making that happen... I mean because that is what we all REALLY want, right? Or are we complaining about the actual CARE?

[BleedOrange]

Originally posted by rockdale80
Ok, lets get out the crayons and Big Chief tablet so we can walk through this together. You are correct in the reasoning for protecting a 3rd party from damage regarding auto insurance and health insurance is no different. If you have no insurance and get sick IT COSTS ME MONEY, much like if you crash into me without insurance IT COSTS ME MONEY. Did you follow that line of thinking? The third party being protected are the insured that continue to see rising premiums and a decline in services. Guess our fearless leader can string together a logical progression of thought and comparison and you cant.

Also, you are wrong as it is not unconstitutional to require insurance. Insurance isnt a right, but it should be. ;)

It does not cost you anything that you can directly attribute to one person not having medical insurance. Conversely, if you are at fault in an accident and cause property damage and/or bodily injury and do not have insurance you have specific quantifiable damages attributable to the failure to have insurance. Your argument is intellectually ridiculous and penalizes those who elect not to carry medical insurance and pay from their own funds. In addition you fail to account for those not on the tax roles getting care. Is this simple enough for you. Probably not but I gave it the old college try. Why don't we try for some reform that doesn't ruin the best system in the world (tort reform, competition, etc.). Also, since you seem to want to discuss why don't you explain where in our constitution that it provides for the government to force someone to have insurance. I believe they will try and circumvent the constitution through their fine/tax of those who don't carry insurance. Why are they proposing this fine versus a specific requirement to have insurance?? Think real hard now...its because they cannot do it under the constitution. Sometimes you shouldn't even comment because you really look silly.

[rockdale80]

Originally posted by BleedOrange
It does not cost you anything that you can directly attribute to one person not having medical insurance. Conversely, if you are at fault in an accident and cause property damage and/or bodily injury and do not have insurance you have specific quantifiable damages attributable to the failure to have insurance. Your argument is intellectually ridiculous and penalizes those who elect not to carry medical insurance and pay from their own funds. In addition you fail to account for those not on the tax roles getting care. Is this simple enough for you. Probably not but I gave it the old college try. Why don't we try for some reform that doesn't ruin the best system in the world (tort reform, competition, etc.). Also, since you seem to want to discuss why don't you explain where in our constitution that it provides for the government to force someone to have insurance. I believe they will try and circumvent the constitution through their fine/tax of those who don't carry insurance. Why are they proposing this fine versus a specific requirement to have insurance?? Think real hard now...its because they cannot do it under the constitution. Sometimes you shouldn't even comment because you really look silly.

How many people do you think dont carry insurance because they can afford healthcare without it? I dont know a number, but I would be willing to bet that it is an extremely small number of citizens because those that can afford healthcare purchase insurance instead. It is not penalizing those that choose to not have insurance and instead protects those of us that do. I am not sure how my point is silly or intellectually ridiculous even after reading and rereading your diatribe about my stupidity. I am positive that it doesnt state anywhere in the constitution where mandatory insurance is prohibited or promoted so this thought that it is unconstitutional is absurd. So come on Rhodes scholar, please tell me what part of the constitution would violate implementation of mandatory insurance? Surely a genius like yourself can drop some knowledge on all of us, right?

[BleedOrange]

Originally posted by rockdale80
How many people do you think dont carry insurance because they can afford healthcare without it? I dont know a number, but I would be willing to bet that it is an extremely small number of citizens because those that can afford healthcare purchase insurance instead. It is not penalizing those that choose to not have insurance and instead protects those of us that do. I am not sure how my point is silly or intellectually ridiculous even after reading and rereading your diatribe about my stupidity. I am positive that it doesnt state anywhere in the constitution where mandatory insurance is prohibited or promoted so this thought that it is unconstitutional is absurd. So come on Rhodes scholar, please tell me what part of the constitution would violate implementation of mandatory insurance? Surely a genius like yourself can drop some knowledge on all of us, right?

Please refer to the enumerated powers. It provides for what the federal government can do. Forcing someone to have insurance is not within the powers granted by the constitution to the federal government. The forcing of someone to have health insurance would have to be done by the States not the federal government. That is fact. Again why do you think they are proposing fines/taxes versus a requirement to have insurance. You don't need to be a Rhodes scholar (or quite frankly an elementary school graduate) to figure that one out.

With regard to how many pay for their own healthcare is really irrelevant to the issue. I don't know the number but it is larger than you think. In addtion, a majorityof healthcare costs are incurred by the elderly who are retired and on medicare/medicaid and not paying any health care insurance premiums. Shall we fine/tax them also? I don't think so. You are going to penalize those who are not the drain on the system. So really you are intellectually ridiculous IMHO.

[rockdale80]

Originally posted by BleedOrange
Please refer to the enumerated powers. It provides for what the federal government can do. Forcing someone to have insurance is not within the powers granted by the constitution to the federal government. The forcing of someone to have health insurance would have to be done by the States not the federal government. That is fact. Again why do you think they are proposing fines/taxes versus a requirement to have insurance. You don't need to be a Rhodes scholar (or quite frankly an elementary school graduate) to figure that one out.

With regard to how many pay for their own healthcare is really irrelevant to the issue. I don't know the number but it is larger than you think. In addtion, a majorityof healthcare costs are incurred by the elderly who are retired and on medicare/medicaid and not paying any health care insurance premiums. Shall we fine/tax them also? I don't think so. You are going to penalize those who are not the drain on the system. So really you are intellectually ridiculous IMHO.



If you say so, but for the sake of my challening your intelligence let us visit the constitution in regards to the enumerated powers that would possibly give the federal government the authority to pass this bill:

Section 8: The Congress shall have power
To lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defence and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;
To constitute tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court;
To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.

Interpretation of the "Necessary and Proper Clause" has been controversial and some interpret the clause to mean that Congress may make a law only if the inability to do so would cripple its ability to apply one of its enumerated powers. Others feel that the Necessary and Proper Clause expands the authority of Congress to all areas tangentially related to one of its enumerated powers. It is often known as the "elastic clause" because of the great amount of leeway in interpretation it allows; the elastic clause has been paired with the commerce clause in particular to provide the constitutional basis for a wide variety of expansive federal laws.

I understand what you are saying, but you have to take into account the commerce clause and the necessary and proper clause that "could" apply if they wanted to make a law versus impose a tax. Regardless, I am not a Supreme Court Judge and much of it is open to interpretation, but I guess only time will tell.

My elementary intelligence is waiting for your big rebuttal....

;)

[BleedOrange]

Originally posted by rockdale80
If you say so, but for the sake of my challening your intelligence let us visit the constitution in regards to the enumerated powers that would possibly give the federal government the authority to pass this bill:

Section 8: The Congress shall have power
To lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defence and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;
To constitute tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court;
To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.

Interpretation of the "Necessary and Proper Clause" has been controversial and some interpret the clause to mean that Congress may make a law only if the inability to do so would cripple its ability to apply one of its enumerated powers. Others feel that the Necessary and Proper Clause expands the authority of Congress to all areas tangentially related to one of its enumerated powers. It is often known as the "elastic clause" because of the great amount of leeway in interpretation it allows; the elastic clause has been paired with the commerce clause in particular to provide the constitutional basis for a wide variety of expansive federal laws.

I understand what you are saying, but you have to take into account the commerce clause and the necessary and proper clause that "could" apply if they wanted to make a law versus impose a tax. Regardless, I am not a Supreme Court Judge and much of it is open to interpretation, but I guess only time will tell.

My elementary intelligence is waiting for your big rebuttal....

;)

No rebuttal necessary. The enumerated powers are unambiguous. It those the left espousing "elastic clause" theories. Unfortunately the current makeup of the Supreme Court is likely to vote 5-4 on the "living breathing constitution" BS. This is absurd and nothing more than judicial activism or legislation from the bench which would have the founders rolling over in their graves. You reallytneed to look at this objectively there is a reason, which is quite obvious, why the proposed legislation does not require everyone to have insurance. Also, the commerce clause relates to the carrying out of the enumerated powers which in no way relates to insurance. I understand the liberal desire to expand the enumerated powers throught he commerce clause but to ignore the true intent is revisionism to the highest degree. Unfortunately, I think the Courts are setup to disregard the desires of the founders.

[Farmersfan]

Whether or not they have the legal right to enact legislation is irrelavant to this discussion. You guys will get this thread closed just like all the others if you don't stop the "PISSING" contest. I would guess less than 1% of the population self-insure in this country. Those with a large amount of wealth recognize the wisdom of insurance. One serious proceedure can cost you more than 10 years of premiums. If the government puts into effect a plan that will enable every single American to get quality healthcare at a affordable price then I will dance naked on the roof in celebration. But it can't happen in this country. There will be far too many people who will find a way to take advantage of the system and we will once again be in a position of paying for other people's healthcare. (just like what is happening now). What happens when the program costs far exceed the money being taken in because a bigger and bigger percentage of the population begin to take the "Freebie" public offering? There is only one thing that can be done: Raise the cost to those who are actually paying. Again and again and again and again and again.
This whole thing is centered around eliminating a class structure and giving everyone the same access to the same healthcare. But what it will do is create it's own class structure. But rather than having the rich and the poor, we will have the payers and the nonpayers. And with the left in control of Washington they will be like a bee hive scrambling to pass new gimmie laws to make sure the lowly non-payers aren't treated like second rate citizens...................Think about it a moment!

[lulu]

Medicare recipients pay premiums if they have part B. Medicaid recipients do not.