Power of Story
Send a Tweet        
- Advertisement -
Refresh  

Share on Google Plus 1 Share on Twitter 2 Share on Facebook 2 Share on LinkedIn Share on PInterest Share on Fark! Share on Reddit Share on StumbleUpon Tell A Friend 1 (6 Shares)  

Printer Friendly Page Save As Favorite View Favorites (# of views)   45 comments
OpEdNews Op Eds

So Few Americans Understand What the Second Amendment Is Really About -- or Its Dark History

By       Message Thom Hartmann     Permalink
      (Page 1 of 3 pages)
Related Topic(s): ; ; ; , Add Tags Add to My Group(s)

Must Read 3   Supported 3   Well Said 2  
View Ratings | Rate It

opednews.com Headlined to H3 10/3/17

Author 1486
Become a Fan
  (126 fans)

From Alternet

- Advertisement -

The Second Amendment is an anachronism that's no longer relevant today.

From youtube.com: The Second Amendment {MID-171102}
The Second Amendment
(Image by YouTube, Channel: Keith Hughes)
  Permission   Details   DMCA

With the crazed assault in Las Vegas that killed over 50 and wounded hundreds as only the most recent example, America's gun violence problem has reached a breaking point. While we can talk all we want about assault weapons bans, universal background checks and terror watch lists, there's only one real solution to this problem: We need to repeal the Second Amendment.

- Advertisement -

This, of course, is completely unacceptable to Republicans, but that's because they don't know the real history of the Second Amendment, and the real history of the Second Amendment is as ugly as it gets.

Thanks to corporate media's unquestioning regurgitation of right-wing talking points, most Americans think that Second Amendment is in the Constitution to protect the rights of individual gun owners from the government.

But that's not even remotely true.

- Advertisement -
The "Second Amendment" as we know it today is a legal fiction invented by the gun industry and their buddies on the Supreme Court and sold to Americans by an expensive multi-decade-long PR campaign.

Despite what you might hear on Fox So-Called news, there actually was no "individual right to own a gun" until 2008, when the Supreme Court said there was in its decision in the case of District of Columbia v. Heller.

That decision, which struck down Washington, D.C.'s handgun ban, was the culmination of a decades-long push by the gun industry to twist the Second Amendment into something that would help it sell more weapons, and it had zero basis in real Constitutional history.

It's what former Chief Justice Warren Burger called a "fraud on the American public," and it's a fraud that now makes it very, very hard to put in place sensible gun control laws.

So, if the Second Amendment wasn't originally about protecting gun rights, why is it in the U.S. Constitution? What were the Founders thinking?

Well, the first and most obvious answer, and the one accepted by most historians, is that they were trying to prevent the existence of a standing army during times of peace.

- Advertisement -
The Founders were scholars of classical history, and they knew that history teaches that when given too much power, armies, repeatedly and throughout history, would overthrow democracy and put in place a military dictatorship. There's even a phrase to describe it: a military coup.

As James Madison told the Philadelphia Constitutional Convention in 1787,

"'A standing military force' will not long be safe companions to liberty. The means of defense against foreign danger have been always the instruments of tyranny at home. Among the Romans it was a standing maxim to excite a war, whenever a revolt was apprehended. Throughout all Europe, the armies kept up under the pretext of defending, have enslaved the people.

Next Page  1  |  2  |  3

 

- Advertisement -

Must Read 3   Supported 3   Well Said 2  
View Ratings | Rate It

http://www.thomhartmann.com
Thom Hartmann is a Project Censored Award-winning New York Times best-selling author, and host of a nationally syndicated daily progressive talk program on the Air America Radio Network, live noon-3 PM ET. www.thomhartmann.com His most recent books are "The Last Hours of Ancient Sunlight," "Unequal Protection: The Rise of Corporate Dominance and the Theft of Human Rights," "We The People," "What Would Jefferson Do?," "Screwed: The Undeclared War (more...)
 

Share on Google Plus Submit to Twitter Add this Page to Facebook! Share on LinkedIn Pin It! Add this Page to Fark! Submit to Reddit Submit to Stumble Upon



Go To Commenting
The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.

Writers Guidelines

Contact AuthorContact Author Contact EditorContact Editor Author PageView Authors' Articles
- Advertisement -

Most Popular Articles by this Author:     (View All Most Popular Articles by this Author)

S&P Blames Republicans, Mainstream Media Fails to Report It

Globalization Is Killing The Globe: Return to Local Economies

The Great Tax Con Job

The Truth about the Trust Fund-- Destroying Social Security to Destroy the Two Party System

The Deciding Moment: The Theft of Human Right

Healthcare: First They Came for the Banksters

Comments

The time limit for entering new comments on this article has expired.

This limit can be removed. Our paid membership program is designed to give you many benefits, such as removing this time limit. To learn more, please click here.

17 people are discussing this page, with 45 comments


Eighthman

Become a Fan
Author 506274

(Member since Aug 2, 2016), 3 fans, 333 comments


Share on Google Plus Submit to Twitter Add this Page to Facebook! Share on LinkedIn Pin It! Add this Page to Fark! Submit to Reddit Submit to Stumble Upon


  New Content
.youtube.com/watch?v=bnoFKskvSq4 Utterly foolish. If conservatives take over, liberal states will nullify on abortion. If liberals take over, conservative states will nullify on guns. And other groups are nullifying on marijuana, hemp, food production and maybe, all illegal drugs (Oregon). And if all that fails, we will soon get common 3-D printing to make banning guns impossible.

Giving up guns means saying "Yes, I trust the Federal government to protect my life and rights" by default. Try saying that aloud in front of a mirror and see if you believe it yourself. Only a cultural, collective change can fix this, not a legislative fiat.

Submitted on Tuesday, Oct 3, 2017 at 4:45:52 PM

Author 0
Add New Comment
Share Comment
Reply To This   Recommend  (3+)
Help
 
Indent

John Lawrence Ré

Become a Fan
Author 78374

(Member since Apr 17, 2012), 11 fans, 1 articles, 699 comments


Share on Google Plus Submit to Twitter Add this Page to Facebook! Share on LinkedIn Pin It! Add this Page to Fark! Submit to Reddit Submit to Stumble Upon


Reply to Eighthman:   New Content

Exactly. Great video, too.

The raison d'être for this absurd article is groundless...unless Hartmann considers the relationship between citizens and the ruling plutocracy a form of slavery -- in which case civilian teraining with guns should be required.

In any case, domestic terror in most countries is acheived more easily with means other than guns. Oklahoma City, the biggest domestic mass killing in the US, was created with easy to purchase, cheap ingredients...not with guns. Yet another reason why democrats are regarded as functional incompetents by the rural poor.

Submitted on Tuesday, Oct 3, 2017 at 5:30:42 PM

Author 0
Add New Comment
Share Comment
Reply To This   Recommend  (0+)
Help
 
IndentIndent

larry payne

Become a Fan
Author 503379

(Member since Aug 22, 2015), 3 fans, 159 comments


Share on Google Plus Submit to Twitter Add this Page to Facebook! Share on LinkedIn Pin It! Add this Page to Fark! Submit to Reddit Submit to Stumble Upon


Reply to John Lawrence Ré:   New Content

I agree that there are many ways to kill people other than guns.
I don't agree with your example, however.
Most of the Oklahoma City bombing damage was done with bombs inside the building, not the truck bomb which the media claimed. Click here.
For more details, watch the film "A Nobile Lie." Click here.

Submitted on Tuesday, Oct 3, 2017 at 6:00:17 PM

Author 0
Add New Comment
Share Comment
Reply To This   Recommend  (2+)
Help
 
Indent

Patrick Walker

Become a Fan
Author 87431

(Member since Apr 20, 2013), 18 fans, 118 articles, 5 quicklinks, 1526 comments


Share on Google Plus Submit to Twitter Add this Page to Facebook! Share on LinkedIn Pin It! Add this Page to Fark! Submit to Reddit Submit to Stumble Upon


Reply to Eighthman:   New Content

I DON'T trust the federal government to defend my rights, but mass gun ownership is useless as t*ts on a bull for doing so. Ever tried to fight fracking destroying your rural region, meaning you have to stand up against the massive political connections, wealth, and media domination (used for lying propaganda) of gas and oil companies? Most Second Amendment mavens I know are the biggest DUPES for those companies; they'd gladly HELP the government kill or maim anti-fracking activists and unjustly agree with them that we're eco-terrorists.

Corporate tyranny exists NOW, and gun owners actually seem to LIKE it. I trust them, as little as I trust our government, to protect my civil rights.

Submitted on Wednesday, Oct 4, 2017 at 5:11:19 PM

Author 0
Add New Comment
Share Comment
Reply To This   Recommend  (1+)
Help
 

Rick Kincade

Become a Fan
Author 84503

(Member since Dec 10, 2012), 1 fan, 245 comments


Share on Google Plus Submit to Twitter Add this Page to Facebook! Share on LinkedIn Pin It! Add this Page to Fark! Submit to Reddit Submit to Stumble Upon


  New Content

That is an interesting article about the ins and outs of the second amendment and the connection to slavery. HOWEVER I don't think your conclusion is valid. Like Eighthman said, " Yes, I trust the Federal government to protect my life and rights." but can't stand in front of a mirror and say that without laughing.


Thom, the federal government and the US which it governs stopped being a democracy a long time ago. We live in a 1% Oligarchy, Corporate controlled state. We vote but they control the vote. We try to run a quality candidates, Bernie and Jill, and they crush us with insider power NOT Democracy.


The fact that fifty or more Americans are dead can be blamed directly on our government's policy of killing people first and asking questions later. The first option is almost always the use of force. So that is what our police do now, instead of being keepers of the peace they are keepers of the "force" and they like us to know that. I agree with Eighthman that "Only a cultural, collective change can fix this, not a legislative fiat." and that can only happen if everyday Americans wake up to the horrors we are causing around the world. We need to fix our own house before bombing others homes far away. Asking our citizens to give up their guns when the Federal Government refuses to give up theirs is not self-preserving and serves only our rotten, warlike, leaders!

Submitted on Tuesday, Oct 3, 2017 at 5:41:14 PM

Author 0
Add New Comment
Share Comment
Reply To This   Recommend  (3+)
Help
 

larry payne

Become a Fan
Author 503379

(Member since Aug 22, 2015), 3 fans, 159 comments


Share on Google Plus Submit to Twitter Add this Page to Facebook! Share on LinkedIn Pin It! Add this Page to Fark! Submit to Reddit Submit to Stumble Upon


  New Content

I've never been a gun enthusiast. But when I see what is happening in this country today, I'm not comfortable with guns being taken away from citizens either. The Las Vegas shooting has many anomalies which haven't been explained. There were many anomalies at Newtown, Aurora and San Bernadino as well. Mainstream media used all those events to try to sell gun control. Taking guns from citizens moves the U.S. much closer to the police state which has been increasing in scope since the false flag attacks of 9/11. Here's investigative reporter, Jon Rappaport's, analysis of the current mass shooting: Click here.

Submitted on Tuesday, Oct 3, 2017 at 5:43:16 PM

Author 0
Add New Comment
Share Comment
Reply To This   Recommend  (2+)
Help
 

Kyle Gordy

Become a Fan
Author 84177

(Member since Nov 30, 2012), 1 fan, 4 articles, 138 comments


Share on Google Plus Submit to Twitter Add this Page to Facebook! Share on LinkedIn Pin It! Add this Page to Fark! Submit to Reddit Submit to Stumble Upon


  New Content
What Eightman doesn't realize is that democracies are usually overthrown from within, as in a coup, and/or just ignoring the constitution at times; no guns needed to overthrow.

Submitted on Tuesday, Oct 3, 2017 at 6:12:35 PM

Author 0
Add New Comment
Share Comment
Reply To This   Recommend  (1+)
Help
 
Indent

Eighthman

Become a Fan
Author 506274

(Member since Aug 2, 2016), 3 fans, 333 comments


Share on Google Plus Submit to Twitter Add this Page to Facebook! Share on LinkedIn Pin It! Add this Page to Fark! Submit to Reddit Submit to Stumble Upon


Reply to Kyle Gordy:   New Content

What does overthrowing the government have to do with anything here?

Both parties push for more war and less freedom and we have no say in the matter. Guns are a last ditch obstacle against losing more freedom.

If we had a fair democracy that cared about Americans and stopped perpetual war, personal firearms might fade away. You can't expect gun control to work if no one trusts the government. This is the critical issue.

Submitted on Tuesday, Oct 3, 2017 at 7:14:53 PM

Author 0
Add New Comment
Share Comment
Reply To This   Recommend  (2+)
Help
 

PCM

Become a Fan
Author 55357

(Member since Nov 1, 2010), 11 fans, 3 quicklinks, 847 comments


Share on Google Plus Submit to Twitter Add this Page to Facebook! Share on LinkedIn Pin It! Add this Page to Fark! Submit to Reddit Submit to Stumble Upon


  New Content

I'm going to play devil's advocate here.

Consider the Ludlow Massacre and the Colorado Coalfield War. Consider the Battle of Matewan. Consider the steady evisceration of union rights since Taft-Hartley in 1948. Consider the steady decline of the bottom 90% of Americans over the past few decades. Consider whom our government bailed out and whom they left to flounder in the aftermath of the financial crash of 2007. Consider how federal, state, and local governments responded to Occupy. Consider how federal, state, and local governments are responding to Black Lives Matter. Consider Martin and Gilens' objective evidence that the US is a non-democratic, plutocratic oligarchy. Consider how the federal government has been supplying military-grade materiel (MRAPs, automatic weapons, bayonets) to state and local law enforcement agencies. Consider how most of our law enforcement agencies give hiring preference to military veterans, who have been trained to kill and dominate rather than to de-escalate and reconcile. Then revisit Thom Hartmann's article and ask yourself if the slavery-based origins of the Second Amendment are the relevant inquiry here.

Again -- just playing devil's advocate.

Submitted on Tuesday, Oct 3, 2017 at 6:22:42 PM

Author 0
Add New Comment
Share Comment
Reply To This   Recommend  (4+)
Help
 

Steve Osborn

Become a Fan
Author 25801
Follow Me on Twitter
(Member since Nov 5, 2008), 3 fans, 5 articles, 15 comments


Share on Google Plus Submit to Twitter Add this Page to Facebook! Share on LinkedIn Pin It! Add this Page to Fark! Submit to Reddit Submit to Stumble Upon


  New Content

I'd rather not be discussing this article at such an insensitive time, but it needs comment before the comment window closes.

Change our original Bill of Rights? I can't claim to know you, Mr. Hartmann, and I certainly wouldn't want to insult your attempt to point out some history to us, but I have to admit that a Lennon/McCartney quote immediately comes to mind, "You say you'll change the Constitution, well you know, we all want to change your head."

I'll rely on a four-year-old OpEdNews article to say mostly what I have to say. Here's an examination of the origins of the original language of the Bill of Rights, including the Second Amendment.

Submitted on Tuesday, Oct 3, 2017 at 6:43:07 PM

Author 0
Add New Comment
Share Comment
Reply To This   Recommend  (0+)
Help
 
Indent

BFalcon

Become a Fan
Author 28059

(Member since Dec 20, 2008), 17 fans, 3 articles, 13901 comments


Share on Google Plus Submit to Twitter Add this Page to Facebook! Share on LinkedIn Pin It! Add this Page to Fark! Submit to Reddit Submit to Stumble Upon


Reply to Steve Osborn:   New Content

Nobody is changing the Bill of Rights.

We add another amendment as appropriate.

Submitted on Tuesday, Oct 10, 2017 at 9:41:43 PM

Author 0
Add New Comment
Share Comment
Reply To This   Recommend  (0+)
Help
 

pablo mayhew

Become a Fan
Author 95209

(Member since Aug 14, 2014), 8 fans, 6 articles, 892 comments


Share on Google Plus Submit to Twitter Add this Page to Facebook! Share on LinkedIn Pin It! Add this Page to Fark! Submit to Reddit Submit to Stumble Upon


  New Content

This situation requires much further analysis than a knee-jerk reaction will permit.

For instance...

Click here:

Never relinquish your right to own and bear arms while living under a thoroughly corrupt plutocracy that is bent on complete domination.

It is game over, if you do so. And there is no going back.

Submitted on Tuesday, Oct 3, 2017 at 7:59:00 PM

Author 0
Add New Comment
Share Comment
Reply To This   Recommend  (3+)
Help
 
Indent

Patrick Walker

Become a Fan
Author 87431

(Member since Apr 20, 2013), 18 fans, 118 articles, 5 quicklinks, 1526 comments


Share on Google Plus Submit to Twitter Add this Page to Facebook! Share on LinkedIn Pin It! Add this Page to Fark! Submit to Reddit Submit to Stumble Upon


Reply to pablo mayhew:   New Content

Yeah, like those arms have done so much good in stopping the plutocrats from taking over. Guns are no defense when most people are dupes of brainwashing.

Given that brainwashing, it's highly arguable that the CHIEF use of guns will be so the brainwashed can HELP the government repress the "woke." In fact, given that it's Republicans who MOST love guns, that scenario seems likely should Trump or someone like him go full fascist.

So let's see: we're tolerating regular incidents of mass slaughter so Trump or some fascist demagogue can turn his armed supporters loose on the "woke." Hurrah, Second Amendment.

Submitted on Wednesday, Oct 4, 2017 at 8:10:51 PM

Author 0
Add New Comment
Share Comment
Reply To This   Recommend  (1+)
Help
 
IndentIndent

pablo mayhew

Become a Fan
Author 95209

(Member since Aug 14, 2014), 8 fans, 6 articles, 892 comments


Share on Google Plus Submit to Twitter Add this Page to Facebook! Share on LinkedIn Pin It! Add this Page to Fark! Submit to Reddit Submit to Stumble Upon


Reply to Patrick Walker:   New Content

All I have seen is a bunch of false flags designed to coerce the "brainwashed" into relinquishing their ability to defend themselves from those who have carried out those false flags.

Also, random instances of people ignoring every law of man and God every time a natural disaster or other catastrophe occurs.

What do you suppose will happen if we get hit with an EMP device or something similar that deprives a vast portion of the country of power for a long stretch?

And if those who have weapons are dumb enough to come in on the side of the plutocracy, as you suggest... well, even more reason to maintain the means for self-defense.

I will keep my guns, thank you very much, and retain my ability to defend myself. And I will continue to advise others to do likewise.

Submitted on Thursday, Oct 12, 2017 at 5:12:07 AM

Author 0
Add New Comment
Share Comment
Reply To This   Recommend  (0+)
Help
 

Mark Skudlarek

Become a Fan
Author 507730

(Member since Dec 16, 2016), 1 fan, 2 articles, 66 comments


Share on Google Plus Submit to Twitter Add this Page to Facebook! Share on LinkedIn Pin It! Add this Page to Fark! Submit to Reddit Submit to Stumble Upon


  New Content

I reckon the federal government will repeal the 2nd, and any other piece of the Constitution, whenever the federal government considers it to be in the federal government's best interest.


I think it much more likely that the Vegas Massacre will cause the federal government to make a new agency. The Department of Personal Firearms Management. A police state can never have too many police.

Submitted on Tuesday, Oct 3, 2017 at 8:48:49 PM

Author 0
Add New Comment
Share Comment
Reply To This   Recommend  (0+)
Help
 

Kenneth Morris

Become a Fan
Author 506896

(Member since Oct 15, 2016), 1 fan, 5 articles, 142 comments


Share on Google Plus Submit to Twitter Add this Page to Facebook! Share on LinkedIn Pin It! Add this Page to Fark! Submit to Reddit Submit to Stumble Upon


  New Content

The connection between state militias and slavery is interesting, but I'm afraid it leads the author to the wrong conclusion.

State militias are good things. They are a check on concentrated military power in the national government. The Constitution is chock full of references to state militias even as it includes a ban on a standing national army.

US imperialism was the prompt for doing away with the state militias by combining them into the National Guard around the turn of the 20th century. The state militias were proving too difficult to coordinate by generals waging wars of conquest. These generals favored a standing national army instead. Had we stuck with the sloppier state militias, though, we would have had less imperialism while still maintaining adequate genuinely defensive military capability.

That state militias were also used to maintain slavery is a bit of a red herring. So were other aspects of state autonomy. This tarnishing of good political design by showing how it was once used by slave owners is a guilt-by-association argument that doesn't hold up. It especially doesn't hold up when the alternative is an imperialist standing national military.

I therefore favor keeping the 2nd amendment along with the rest of the Constitution and just doing what they say. They clearly say no standing national army but instead reliance upon state militias for legitimate defense.

As for the individual right to bear arms for self-defense, I don't think that's in the 2nd amendment either. In the Heller decision, Scalia read it into a comma. I do favor a limited right to gun ownership for self-defense, just don't think this is a constitutional right.

Submitted on Tuesday, Oct 3, 2017 at 9:51:29 PM

Author 0
Add New Comment
Share Comment
Reply To This   Recommend  (1+)
Help
 
Indent

BFalcon

Become a Fan
Author 28059

(Member since Dec 20, 2008), 17 fans, 3 articles, 13901 comments


Share on Google Plus Submit to Twitter Add this Page to Facebook! Share on LinkedIn Pin It! Add this Page to Fark! Submit to Reddit Submit to Stumble Upon


Reply to Kenneth Morris:   New Content

Agreed.

Submitted on Tuesday, Oct 10, 2017 at 9:42:38 PM

Author 0
Add New Comment
Share Comment
Reply To This   Recommend  (0+)
Help
 

Lenny Gray

Become a Fan
Author 504343

(Member since Dec 30, 2015), 20 comments


Share on Google Plus Submit to Twitter Add this Page to Facebook! Share on LinkedIn Pin It! Add this Page to Fark! Submit to Reddit Submit to Stumble Upon


  New Content

Although words can be strung together to call into question what others consider "obvious", those strung-together words are not necessarily valid, even when they have a good back-story.

The Pennsylvania Constitution, which was in place from Sept 28, 1776, (and clearly having nothing to do with "slave patrols" as Pennsylvania was a "free" state), says:

"XIII. That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the state; and as standing armies in the time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; and that the military should be kept under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power."

Also note that the US Constitution was not ratified until the first 10 Amendments were accepted, on December 15, 1791, some 15 years later,

Now, whereas 8 of the 40 signers of the US Constitution were from Pennsylvania (including one Benjamin Franklin, who was clearly no dummy, having the wool pulled over his eyes), and thus hardly unaware of the subject matter of the words of the Second Amendment, they clearly believed they were including a similar "right" for the citizens of the country as a whole, as was/is the basis of the laws of their state.

Submitted on Tuesday, Oct 3, 2017 at 10:27:21 PM

Author 0
Add New Comment
Share Comment
Reply To This   Recommend  (0+)
Help
 
Indent

Lenny Gray

Become a Fan
Author 504343

(Member since Dec 30, 2015), 20 comments


Share on Google Plus Submit to Twitter Add this Page to Facebook! Share on LinkedIn Pin It! Add this Page to Fark! Submit to Reddit Submit to Stumble Upon


Reply to Lenny Gray:   New Content
SO, SOMEONE PLEASE TELL TOM HARTMAN HE'S WRONG.

Submitted on Wednesday, Oct 4, 2017 at 4:53:02 PM

Author 0
Add New Comment
Share Comment
Reply To This   Recommend  (0+)
Help
 
IndentIndent

BFalcon

Become a Fan
Author 28059

(Member since Dec 20, 2008), 17 fans, 3 articles, 13901 comments


Share on Google Plus Submit to Twitter Add this Page to Facebook! Share on LinkedIn Pin It! Add this Page to Fark! Submit to Reddit Submit to Stumble Upon


Reply to Lenny Gray:   New Content

But he is not.

Submitted on Tuesday, Oct 10, 2017 at 9:43:49 PM

Author 0
Add New Comment
Share Comment
Reply To This   Recommend  (0+)
Help
 

Susan Lee Schwartz

Become a Fan
Author 40790

(Member since Oct 25, 2009), 19 fans, 15 articles, 3055 quicklinks, 4894 comments, 1 diaries


Share on Google Plus Submit to Twitter Add this Page to Facebook! Share on LinkedIn Pin It! Add this Page to Fark! Submit to Reddit Submit to Stumble Upon


  New Content

We ARE the most dangerous nation on earth.


Great talk.

Submitted on Tuesday, Oct 3, 2017 at 10:33:39 PM

Author 0
Add New Comment
Share Comment
Reply To This   Recommend  (2+)
Help
 

Dan Greaney

Become a Fan
Author 72276

(Member since Oct 3, 2011), 6 articles, 15 comments, 2 diaries


Share on Google Plus Submit to Twitter Add this Page to Facebook! Share on LinkedIn Pin It! Add this Page to Fark! Submit to Reddit Submit to Stumble Upon


  New Content

Or just amend it:
Access to information, being necessary to the intelligence of a democratic state, the right of the people to a free and open internet shall not be infringed.

Submitted on Tuesday, Oct 3, 2017 at 10:39:26 PM

Author 0
Add New Comment
Share Comment
Reply To This   Recommend  (2+)
Help
 
Indent

Patrick Walker

Become a Fan
Author 87431

(Member since Apr 20, 2013), 18 fans, 118 articles, 5 quicklinks, 1526 comments


Share on Google Plus Submit to Twitter Add this Page to Facebook! Share on LinkedIn Pin It! Add this Page to Fark! Submit to Reddit Submit to Stumble Upon


Reply to Dan Greaney:   New Content

LOVE this comment. A free and open Internet is infinitely more useful to freedom NOW than the anachronistic Second Amendment.

Submitted on Wednesday, Oct 4, 2017 at 5:13:59 PM

Author 0
Add New Comment
Share Comment
Reply To This   Recommend  (1+)
Help
 
Indent

PCM

Become a Fan
Author 55357

(Member since Nov 1, 2010), 11 fans, 3 quicklinks, 847 comments


Share on Google Plus Submit to Twitter Add this Page to Facebook! Share on LinkedIn Pin It! Add this Page to Fark! Submit to Reddit Submit to Stumble Upon


Reply to Dan Greaney:   New Content

Append some language like "by any actor, public, private, or mixed" and you've got my support. One of the great failings of the Bill of Rights is that it protects citizens -- make that, used to protect citizens -- only from government overreach. In a country where the private sector controls so many facets of life, that's a problem.

Submitted on Thursday, Oct 5, 2017 at 3:23:02 PM

Author 0
Add New Comment
Share Comment
Reply To This   Recommend  (1+)
Help
 

Lance Ciepiela

Become a Fan
Author 14196
Follow Me on Twitter
(Member since Apr 4, 2008), 50 fans, 58 articles, 45 quicklinks, 3288 comments, 213 diaries


Share on Google Plus Submit to Twitter Add this Page to Facebook! Share on LinkedIn Pin It! Add this Page to Fark! Submit to Reddit Submit to Stumble Upon


  New Content

Throughout history the dictators and tyrants have confiscated the arms of the citizens rendering the populace unable to defend themselves from official government tyranny.


Unarmed civilians terrorized by the tyrannical force of arms - 'the familiar sounds of fanaticism'
(Image by ushmm.org)
Permission Details DMCA

So far no American president has asked or demanded the American people to surrender their arms - ultimately, keeping the United States free "with liberty and justice for all" will require that our freedom loving citizens #StayVigilant with their weapons "in tow".

Submitted on Tuesday, Oct 3, 2017 at 10:48:46 PM

Author 0
Add New Comment
Share Comment
Reply To This   Recommend  (2+)
Help
 

WOAvonL

Become a Fan
Author 507206

(Member since Nov 7, 2016), 1 comments


Share on Google Plus Submit to Twitter Add this Page to Facebook! Share on LinkedIn Pin It! Add this Page to Fark! Submit to Reddit Submit to Stumble Upon


  New Content

This article talks about the past, but conditions have changed. I believe that individual citizens must have the means readily at hand to resist both State and Federal tyranny.


If in Nazi Germany, every Jew had guns and the Will to use them, what would have happened? NOT the Holocaust, I think. The Gestapo would have faced the very, very costly operation of room to room fighting, and the Jews would not have disappeared quietly, Im Nacht und Nebel.


Here in the US, I see ever more signs that Tyranny is coming, and soon. The NSA and local police have more means of monitoring communications between Citizens than Hitler and Himmler ever wished for----it is probably impossible to mount any organized resistance to Tyranny in this society due to electronic surveillance.


And the frosting on the cake for me is the assertion by President Obama that he has the right to kill anyone, anywhere and never account for that action, before or after, by uttering the Two Magic Words, "National Security." And to make sure this Divine Right is perfectly understood, Obama later stated that this right of the Commander in Chief included the right to kill US Citizens on US Soil, and to account to no one for these actions.


In the Declaration of Independence, there is a list of reasons for the necessity of the Revolution. The actions of both the State and Federal governments in recent years have far surpassed those complaints and our Liberty eroded by Domestic Enemies who violate the Constitution more and more every day. The means readily to hand to resist tyranny is more necessary today than it was then.


But, having said that, I also believe that there must be regulations that try to make mass killings more difficult. It is a balancing of rights and the reasons above should not be disregarded or a dictatorship will follow. The power has been asserted with no outcry----the actions will come, at the next time Citizens are ready to trade their liberty in the hope of security.



Submitted on Wednesday, Oct 4, 2017 at 12:24:06 PM

Author 0
Add New Comment
Share Comment
Reply To This   Recommend  (0+)
Help
 
Indent

Susan Lee Schwartz

Become a Fan
Author 40790

(Member since Oct 25, 2009), 19 fans, 15 articles, 3055 quicklinks, 4894 comments, 1 diaries


Share on Google Plus Submit to Twitter Add this Page to Facebook! Share on LinkedIn Pin It! Add this Page to Fark! Submit to Reddit Submit to Stumble Upon


Reply to WOAvonL:   New Content

You said, and I see it too, "Here in the US, I see ever more signs that Tyranny is coming, and soon. The NSA and local police have more means of monitoring communications between Citizens than Hitler and Himmler ever wished for----it is probably impossible to mount any organized resistance to Tyranny in this society due to electronic surveillance."


but the only truth inched statement is the "i think" part, because anti-semitism would not be wiped out with guns in the hands of jewish citizens. Such policies are dictated by the racists at the top! "If in Nazi Germany, every Jew had guns and the Will to use them, what would have happened? NOT the Holocaust, I think."

Submitted on Wednesday, Oct 4, 2017 at 2:26:44 PM

Author 0
Add New Comment
Share Comment
Reply To This   Recommend  (1+)
Help
 

Patrick Walker

Become a Fan
Author 87431

(Member since Apr 20, 2013), 18 fans, 118 articles, 5 quicklinks, 1526 comments


Share on Google Plus Submit to Twitter Add this Page to Facebook! Share on LinkedIn Pin It! Add this Page to Fark! Submit to Reddit Submit to Stumble Upon


  New Content

I think this piece by Thom Hartmann and another piece by Robert Parry currently on OEN add some real historical knowledge about the background and meaning of the Second Amendment almost always EXCLUDED from its discussion. Their pieces put a HEAVY burden of proof on those who would disconnect the rationale for the Second Amendment from "well-regulated militias" or try to argue for the current value of the Second Amendment without explaining where exactly those modern "well-regulated militias" can be found--and what purpose they would serve if we could find (or form) them.

I've seen most people in this discussion make a SERIOUS intellectual mistake. Hartmann's argument that the Second Amendment is outmoded and itself needs amendment is NOT an argument for banning all guns and having the government confiscate them. Instead, it's an argument we should be freed from the shackles of an OUTMODED document in deciding--by well-informed democratic deliberation--what roles both guns and gun control should play in a MODERN U.S. society. The Second Amendment is a HUGE hindrance to that rational democratic discussion.

Submitted on Wednesday, Oct 4, 2017 at 6:01:46 PM

Author 0
Add New Comment
Share Comment
Reply To This   Recommend  (1+)
Help
 
Indent

PCM

Become a Fan
Author 55357

(Member since Nov 1, 2010), 11 fans, 3 quicklinks, 847 comments


Share on Google Plus Submit to Twitter Add this Page to Facebook! Share on LinkedIn Pin It! Add this Page to Fark! Submit to Reddit Submit to Stumble Upon


Reply to Patrick Walker:   New Content

The US Constitution has a lot of problems and oversights, probably because it was designed from the start to protect rich white men from the hoi polloi. It doesn't guarantee a diverse, deconcentrated, deconflicted, competitive media. It doesn't effectively prohibit conflicts of interest in public officials. It doesn't effectively guarantee the right to vote, or equal representation among voters. It doesn't guard against private-sector overreach in citizens' lives. Its anachronistic federal balance of powers is poorly adapted to a mobile, homogenized, integrated economy and doesn't guard against a race to the bottom among states. It's far too difficult to amend (not surprising, given its original goal of protecting rich white men). And that's just off the top of my head and doesn't mention any modern affirmative rights like the right to adequate food, housing, healthcare, and education. As horrific as our gun violence is, I would rate the need to amend or re-construe the Second Amendment as less pressing than all of the above.

By the way, the annual death toll from shootings is around the same as the annual death toll from lack of health insurance. The difference is that the for-profit health sector is making hundreds of billions a year from the system that causes the latter deaths. Those deaths are not acts of insanity or desperation or rage. They are calculated killings for profit. Too bad they don't repeatedly dominate the news cycle.

Submitted on Thursday, Oct 5, 2017 at 4:24:25 PM

Author 0
Add New Comment
Share Comment
Reply To This   Recommend  (1+)
Help
 
IndentIndent

BFalcon

Become a Fan
Author 28059

(Member since Dec 20, 2008), 17 fans, 3 articles, 13901 comments


Share on Google Plus Submit to Twitter Add this Page to Facebook! Share on LinkedIn Pin It! Add this Page to Fark! Submit to Reddit Submit to Stumble Upon


Reply to PCM:   New Content

You put this wrong:

"By the way, the annual death toll from shootings is around the same as the annual death toll from lack of health insurance. The difference is that the for-profit health sector is making hundreds of billions a year from the system that causes the latter deaths."

The numbers are probably not right either but the key incorrect claim is that 'health sector' prevents people from care.

Submitted on Tuesday, Oct 10, 2017 at 9:47:53 PM

Author 0
Add New Comment
Share Comment
Reply To This   Recommend  (0+)
Help
 
IndentIndentIndent

PCM

Become a Fan
Author 55357

(Member since Nov 1, 2010), 11 fans, 3 quicklinks, 847 comments


Share on Google Plus Submit to Twitter Add this Page to Facebook! Share on LinkedIn Pin It! Add this Page to Fark! Submit to Reddit Submit to Stumble Upon


Reply to BFalcon:   New Content

Hard figures are hard to come by, but a 2009 study in the American Journal of Public Health estimated the number of deaths tied to lack of health insurance at around 45,000 annually. Since the advent of Obamacare, insurance has been technically extended to an additional 19 or 20 million people, leaving around 29 million completely uninsured. (At the same time underinsurance has gone up.) More recently, the CBO estimated that repealing Obamacare would result in 22 million more completely uninsured, and the authors of the above-referenced study estimated that that would result in an additional 29,000 premature deaths per year. We can quibble about numbers, but there is no question that high out-of-pockets, whether from being uninsured or underinsured, deter people from seeking necessary care.

We don't have universal, egalitarian, first-dollar health coverage in this country, and that's because the for-profit health sector -- from health insurance companies, to pharmaceutical companies, to device manufacturers, to high-end interventional specialists, to the Wall Street banks that handle their stocks and investments -- is making egregious super-profits from the status quo. And that lack of adequate health coverage is killing people. So, the status quo you routinely defend is wittingly killing people for profit (and the solution you routinely oppose -- single-payer -- would save tens of thousands of lives a year at lower cost).

Submitted on Wednesday, Oct 11, 2017 at 12:10:19 AM

Author 0
Add New Comment
Share Comment
Reply To This   Recommend  (0+)
Help
 
IndentIndentIndentIndent

BFalcon

Become a Fan
Author 28059

(Member since Dec 20, 2008), 17 fans, 3 articles, 13901 comments


Share on Google Plus Submit to Twitter Add this Page to Facebook! Share on LinkedIn Pin It! Add this Page to Fark! Submit to Reddit Submit to Stumble Upon


Reply to PCM:   New Content

I do not defend the status quo, you are wrong there, but don't see 'single payer' as solution either.

It is much more complicated but you fail to admit that.

Submitted on Wednesday, Oct 11, 2017 at 8:39:03 PM

Author 0
Add New Comment
Share Comment
Reply To This   Recommend  (0+)
Help
 
IndentIndentIndentIndentIndent

PCM

Become a Fan
Author 55357

(Member since Nov 1, 2010), 11 fans, 3 quicklinks, 847 comments


Share on Google Plus Submit to Twitter Add this Page to Facebook! Share on LinkedIn Pin It! Add this Page to Fark! Submit to Reddit Submit to Stumble Upon


Reply to BFalcon:   New Content

If single-payer is so complicated, why is its administrative overhead so much lower than ours? The country with the lowest insurance administration overhead in the world (1.5%) that I'm aware of is Taiwan, which uses the closest-to-pure form of national single-payer (designed by Harvard Public Health prof William Hsiao, based on US Medicare). Switzerland allows its private insurers 5% overhead on the compulsory non-profit plan. And of course the US allows insurers up to either 15% or 20% for administration and profits on exchange plans. If Taiwan, Australia, France, and Canada can run single-payer systems and get very good results -- better than ours in most areas, for the last three; Taiwan's system is even more stingily funded than the UK's -- for considerably less money than we spend, I don't think single-payer can be considered insurmountably complicated. You want complicated, look to the US. The US system is a money-skimming bureaucrat's dream and a patient's nightmare. (And, increasingly, a nightmare for GPs, internists, family practitioners, pediatricians, addiction-medicine specialists, and psychiatrists.)

Submitted on Wednesday, Oct 11, 2017 at 11:33:04 PM

Author 0
Add New Comment
Share Comment
Reply To This   Recommend  (0+)
Help
 
IndentIndentIndentIndentIndentIndent

BFalcon

Become a Fan
Author 28059

(Member since Dec 20, 2008), 17 fans, 3 articles, 13901 comments


Share on Google Plus Submit to Twitter Add this Page to Facebook! Share on LinkedIn Pin It! Add this Page to Fark! Submit to Reddit Submit to Stumble Upon


Reply to PCM:   New Content

As you do know the problem in the US is not only the '20%' overhead. It also has little to do with the health care quality.

And rightly you don't quote Taiwan as having better results.

It is quite simple.

Single payer would only initially change who pays. That removes the nightmare that you talk about but does nothing to change health care per se. It immediately transfers all the bills to the government, though.

As we can see that is only the first step. The second step is the monopsonic 'negotiation' of prices and rearrangement of the health care, finding the money through taxes etc.. That is where it gets complicated, no real solution is offered and I disagree.

Submitted on Friday, Oct 13, 2017 at 8:23:25 AM

Author 0
Add New Comment
Share Comment
Reply To This   Recommend  (0+)
Help
 
IndentIndentIndentIndentIndentIndent

PCM

Become a Fan
Author 55357

(Member since Nov 1, 2010), 11 fans, 3 quicklinks, 847 comments


Share on Google Plus Submit to Twitter Add this Page to Facebook! Share on LinkedIn Pin It! Add this Page to Fark! Submit to Reddit Submit to Stumble Upon


Reply to BFalcon:   New Content

There are plenty of ways to finance single-payer health insurance, using different tax bases and different degrees or progressivity. Gerald Friedman proposed one for HR 676 (Expanded & Improved Medicare for All) here, and he calculated that it would save around $600 billion in the first year of operation alone and that 95% of Americans would spend less on healthcare than they do now. I don't recall whether he mentioned that the 5% wealthiest Americans who would spend more, on average, would be shielded from surprise, catastrophic/extraordinary out-of-pockets (due to exemptions, underinsurance on low-tier or uncovered chemo and biologics, and out-of-network exclusions). The extra they would be paying would be for reliable, full insurance, not for tentative, partial insurance as most of them have now.

Submitted on Friday, Oct 13, 2017 at 7:05:07 PM

Author 0
Add New Comment
Share Comment
Reply To This   Recommend  (0+)
Help
 
IndentIndentIndentIndentIndentIndent

PCM

Become a Fan
Author 55357

(Member since Nov 1, 2010), 11 fans, 3 quicklinks, 847 comments


Share on Google Plus Submit to Twitter Add this Page to Facebook! Share on LinkedIn Pin It! Add this Page to Fark! Submit to Reddit Submit to Stumble Upon


Reply to PCM:   New Content
As for the horrors of monopsonistic bargaining, it's called for when sellers have significant market power (due, e.g., to patents, barriers to entry, regional monopolies or oligopolies, and cartel-like behavior such as deliberately obscuring pricing information) and buyers have have very little (e.g., due to fragmentation, not knowing what treatments are necessary and appropriate, being unable to determine in advance what those treatments will actually end up costing, or not having time to even attempt to comparison shop, e.g., while having a heart attack or after being hit by a bus). If monopsonistic bargaining is so detrimental, why does every other developed country use it? How come the median salary for hospitalists in single-payer Ontario is US$185,000 per year compared to the US$175,000 VA average? How come France produces 50% more physicians per capita when the US when their doctors are paid almost 50% less than ours? How come Swiss pharmaceutical companies make 50% of the worldwide profits in the United States market when we have only 5% of the world's population? Why do they nonetheless sell in markets where drug prices are monopsonically negotiated? When you're dealing with a monopolistic/oligopolistic industry whose market power can't be effectively reduced by antitrust enforcement, the only way for buyers not to be gouged is to have a single bargaining agent with the ability and negotiate and set prices. Obviously, those prices have to be fair and sustainable or the supply of sellers will dry up. To my knowledge, the Japanese Ministry of Health drives the hardest bargain in the developed world, and the supply of physicians, facilities, drugs, and devices hasn't dried up over there.

Submitted on Friday, Oct 13, 2017 at 7:05:27 PM

Author 0
Add New Comment
Share Comment
Reply To This   Recommend  (0+)
Help
 
IndentIndentIndentIndentIndentIndent

BFalcon

Become a Fan
Author 28059

(Member since Dec 20, 2008), 17 fans, 3 articles, 13901 comments


Share on Google Plus Submit to Twitter Add this Page to Facebook! Share on LinkedIn Pin It! Add this Page to Fark! Submit to Reddit Submit to Stumble Upon


Reply to PCM:   New Content

" Swiss pharmaceutical companies make 50% of the worldwide profits in the United States market "

You hit it there.

All those countries that you praise benefit from the US but if the US follows them we will all be worse.

The major point also is that they hide their shortcomings. I could discuss it at length and already did time and again.

"Obviously, those prices have to be fair and sustainable or the supply of sellers will dry up"

They won't be.

But the main point that you expose now is that 'single payer' alone does not solve anything, the important work is after and nobody tells us how that will look, only 'trust us, we will figure it out'.

This system can be improved and should be but the abrupt move to 'single payer' is wrong.

Submitted on Saturday, Oct 14, 2017 at 5:36:45 PM

Author 0
Add New Comment
Share Comment
Reply To This   Recommend  (0+)
Help
 
IndentIndentIndentIndentIndentIndent

BFalcon

Become a Fan
Author 28059

(Member since Dec 20, 2008), 17 fans, 3 articles, 13901 comments


Share on Google Plus Submit to Twitter Add this Page to Facebook! Share on LinkedIn Pin It! Add this Page to Fark! Submit to Reddit Submit to Stumble Upon


Reply to PCM:   New Content

All those numbers are tentative and not really adding up.

Submitted on Saturday, Oct 14, 2017 at 5:38:44 PM

Author 0
Add New Comment
Share Comment
Reply To This   Recommend  (0+)
Help
 
IndentIndentIndentIndentIndentIndent

PCM

Become a Fan
Author 55357

(Member since Nov 1, 2010), 11 fans, 3 quicklinks, 847 comments


Share on Google Plus Submit to Twitter Add this Page to Facebook! Share on LinkedIn Pin It! Add this Page to Fark! Submit to Reddit Submit to Stumble Upon


Reply to BFalcon:   New Content
It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary [or his good opinion of himself] depends on his not understanding it.

---- Upton Sinclair [with an addition from me]


Pharmaceuticals Can be a License to Print Money
click here
13 October 2017
(Based on new figures from JAMA Internal Medicine.)

The cost of not having single payer: $1.4 trillion per year Systemic Disorder
click here
12 July 2017
(This one makes my back-of-the-napkin estimate of $1 trillion a year seem conservative, and Gerry Friedman's $600-billion-a-year calculation positively modest. Of course, Friedman's is just for the first year of operation; it ramps up after that.)

Submitted on Saturday, Oct 14, 2017 at 6:26:08 PM

Author 0
Add New Comment
Share Comment
Reply To This   Recommend  (0+)
Help
 
IndentIndentIndentIndentIndentIndent

BFalcon

Become a Fan
Author 28059

(Member since Dec 20, 2008), 17 fans, 3 articles, 13901 comments


Share on Google Plus Submit to Twitter Add this Page to Facebook! Share on LinkedIn Pin It! Add this Page to Fark! Submit to Reddit Submit to Stumble Upon


Reply to PCM:   New Content

Sinclair (and you) are wrong here since my salary is the one of the hospitalist in the VA which you said above should be higher 'under new management'.

And I should retort to you that most of your advocates of single payer just want the government to pay their bills. That affects their understanding, doesn't it?

The so-called method used in 'Systemic Disorder' is beyond laughable:

"To calculate that figure, I took the average per capita health care spending of the three largest EU countries -- France, Germany and the United Kingdom -- and the neighbor of the U.S., Canada, and compared that average to U.S. per capita spending. The composite average for Britain, Canada, France and Germany for the years 2011 to 2016 is $4,392 per capita per year, converted to U.S. dollars adjusted to create purchasing power parity as reported by the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). Per capital health care spending in the U.S. for 2011 to 2016 averaged $8,924 -- more than twice as much! Taking that difference and multiplying by 317 million, the average U.S. population for the five-year period, and the total annual excess comes to $1.44 trillion. "

Do I need to add anything to that?

As for pharmaceuticals, I agree that we need improvement there but not 'your kind'.

Simply 'nationalizing them' will throw the water and the baby out.

Who in the world developed the medications who treat only thousands of people with some rare diseases in the US and abroad ? The greedy US (or Swiss etc.) pharmaceutical companies. They are expensive beyond belief but would not exist if not for the US.

And: https://aspe.hhs.gov/system/files/pdf/187586/Drugspending.pdf

March 8, 2016

Key findings

" Expenditures on prescription drugs are rising and are projected to continue to rise faster than overall health spending thereby increasing this sector's share of health care spending.

" ASPE estimates that prescription drug spending in the United States was about $457 billion in 2015, or 16.7 percent of overall personal health care services. Of that $457 billion, $328 billion (71.9 percent) was for retail drugs and $128 billion (28.1 percent) was for non-retail drugs.

" Factors underlying the rise in prescription drug spending from 2010 to 2014 can be roughly allocated as follows: 10 percent of that rise was due to population growth; 30 percent to an increase in prescriptions per person; 30 percent to overall, economy-wide inflation; and 30 percent to either changes in the composition of drugs prescribed toward higher price products or price increases for drugs that together drove average price increases in excess of general inflation.

" Expenditures on specialty drugs generally appear to be rising more rapidly than expenditures on other drugs, though estimates of specialty drug expenditures are highly sensitive to which drugs are considered "specialty" products.

So, the cost of drugs, while important, does not (contrary to popular views) dominate the cost of the US health care.

The US health care is redundant and therefore expensive. But that makes it possible for any person to, say, go to Mayo clinic for consultation. And you have a lot of facilities competing for the 'consumer'. In 'rational' health care you have to go through a procedure to be approved to see somebody etc. etc.

Improvement is possible, 'single payer' is not it.

Submitted on Sunday, Oct 15, 2017 at 4:25:55 PM

Author 0
Add New Comment
Share Comment
Reply To This   Recommend  (0+)
Help
 
IndentIndentIndentIndentIndentIndent

PCM

Become a Fan
Author 55357

(Member since Nov 1, 2010), 11 fans, 3 quicklinks, 847 comments


Share on Google Plus Submit to Twitter Add this Page to Facebook! Share on LinkedIn Pin It! Add this Page to Fark! Submit to Reddit Submit to Stumble Upon


Reply to BFalcon:   New Content

So which is it? Do you concede that your income might go up under single-payer, as in Ontario, or does monopsonistic bargaining always result in prices that are too low to sustain supply?

As for single-payer advocates just wanting "the government to pay their bills," most of us are well aware that we are taxpayers and that we would still be "paying our bills" through the government. (Even people who don't pay taxes directly still pay them indirectly, through tax-shifting, but you might not be familiar with that economic concept.) Go to any country with single-payer or a national health service or a tightly regulated non-profit all-payer system that has readily identifiable, segregated healthcare taxes and see whether patients think they're getting a free ride. What we would like is for the government to protect us from being cheated and gouged by sellers with dramatically greater market power than we have. That's what every other developed country does.

I already said that my back-of-the-napkin trillion-dollar-a-year estimate -- based on comparing the difference in percentages of GDP spent on healthcare -- was conservative compared to Systemic Disorder's. Mine is closer to Gerry Friedman's long-term calculation, and he's an economist who specializes in healthcare. But I'm sure you can find think-tank economists supported by libertarian anti-tax billionaires, insurance companies, pharma companies, and investment banks who will back whatever figures serve your narrative.

Monopsonistically bargaining with pharmaceutical companies is not "nationalizing" them. You're using a straw-man argument.

Orphan drug R&D is subsidized by the government.

Submitted on Sunday, Oct 15, 2017 at 8:41:11 PM

Author 0
Add New Comment
Share Comment
Reply To This   Recommend  (0+)
Help
 
IndentIndentIndentIndentIndentIndent

PCM

Become a Fan
Author 55357

(Member since Nov 1, 2010), 11 fans, 3 quicklinks, 847 comments


Share on Google Plus Submit to Twitter Add this Page to Facebook! Share on LinkedIn Pin It! Add this Page to Fark! Submit to Reddit Submit to Stumble Upon


Reply to PCM:   New Content

I get it. You fear and loathe single-payer. Every other developed country has a healthcare system that incorporates all or most of its key elements, the great majority of them get better outcomes than we do in most areas, and they all spend a lot less money, but still, you fear and loathe it and concern-troll it at every opportunity. There's really no point in continuing to debate it with you. I'll continue to post, but I will no longer bother responding to your evidence-free objections.

Submitted on Sunday, Oct 15, 2017 at 8:41:58 PM

Author 0
Add New Comment
Share Comment
Reply To This   Recommend  (0+)
Help
 
IndentIndentIndentIndentIndentIndent

BFalcon

Become a Fan
Author 28059

(Member since Dec 20, 2008), 17 fans, 3 articles, 13901 comments


Share on Google Plus Submit to Twitter Add this Page to Facebook! Share on LinkedIn Pin It! Add this Page to Fark! Submit to Reddit Submit to Stumble Upon


Reply to PCM:   New Content

You don't get it at all.

I see people blindly assuming that single payer will solve problems without negative effects. Single payer has some solutions for some problems but has important negative effects and loses some advantages that we have with the present system.

People also exaggerate data to suit them and I try to correct these.

Other countries don't have better outcomes in most areas, only in some. Their negatives are ignored.

Sudden introduction of single payer is wrong and would only result in huge deficit.

I am for improvement of the present system and, for example, would support including all the people who develop a burdensome chronic disease, like diabetes, into Medicare. I would also support introduction of the government funded 'catastrophic' disease insurance.

I have tried to combine the positives of what we have and what we don't and the system that I would like would provide government's option with 'full' coverage of all the needed preventive care, catastrophic illness and chronic disease. However, it would come with decent copays depending on the income and the price of the service and would charge premiums based on the income. The issue of the pharmaceuticals would be solved separately with a number of measures that I won't discuss now.

As you can see, I dispute exaggerations and inaccuracies but definitely want improvement. Sudden introduction of 'single payer' that would, for example, fully pay for physical therapy of Bill Gates' sprained shoulder after a round of golf funding it from universally paid tax or deficit, is wrong.

There was a proposal to cover all the traffic accidents' damage out of a tax on gas.

What do you think about that?

Submitted on Monday, Oct 16, 2017 at 1:19:26 PM

Author 0
Add New Comment
Share Comment
Reply To This   Recommend  (0+)
Help
 
IndentIndentIndentIndentIndentIndent

BFalcon

Become a Fan
Author 28059

(Member since Dec 20, 2008), 17 fans, 3 articles, 13901 comments


Share on Google Plus Submit to Twitter Add this Page to Facebook! Share on LinkedIn Pin It! Add this Page to Fark! Submit to Reddit Submit to Stumble Upon


Reply to PCM:   New Content

If you already had a better number why did you quote the ridiculous Systemic Disorder's?

Submitted on Monday, Oct 16, 2017 at 1:20:52 PM

Author 0
Add New Comment
Share Comment
Reply To This   Recommend  (0+)
Help
 

BFalcon

Become a Fan
Author 28059

(Member since Dec 20, 2008), 17 fans, 3 articles, 13901 comments


Share on Google Plus Submit to Twitter Add this Page to Facebook! Share on LinkedIn Pin It! Add this Page to Fark! Submit to Reddit Submit to Stumble Upon


  New Content

Very valuable and informative, thank you.

Submitted on Tuesday, Oct 10, 2017 at 9:48:47 PM

Author 0
Add New Comment
Share Comment
Reply To This   Recommend  (0+)
Help
 

 
Want to post your own comment on this Article? Post Comment