tkhayes

with arguments like that - it's no wonder you are done.

one incident - thousands of dollars to provide mental health care for everyone at that rally in AZ. 10's of millions for what happened. Funerals, EMT/EMS, Police, FBI, investigations. Health care (just how much do you think Gabby Gifford will cost for her injuries and who pays for it?), litigation - no doubt Safeway will get sued over it, as well as anyone else with a deep pocket. Prosecution of the case typically costs hundreds of thousands, if not millions, http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/10/14/study-average-cost-murder-tops-million/ the right wing network itself agrees. Insurance rates go up because of incidents. additional security, changes to policy, stricter rules regarding events like this. You cna bet the next ongress rally or appearance has twice the number of police and surveillance. the cost to families is unmeasurable. All these costs are borne by society as a whole and therefore trickle down to YOUR tax bill (and mine) Everyone hates taxes, but no one has a problem with paying for the end result - which is a form of tax itself. It's just like health care. Everyone is OK with society paying for emergency room care for the uninsured, - they pay for it alright....(up to $1000/year per person) http://www.commonwealthfund.org/~/media/Files/Publications/In%20the%20Literature/2003/Jun/The%20Costs%20and%20Consequences%20of%20Being%20Uninsured/davis_consequences_itl_663%20pdf.pdf But if someone suggested a tax rate that would cover health care for all - it's 'communist' or socialist. can't see the forest for the trees. Do some homework before you dispute my number,s it could save you a post or two.

my avatar

ooh ooh!! Another one!! Too bad the kids didn't have guns to defend themselves!!

Who said I was abandoning the stance? Providing mental health care for thousands of dollars is cheaper than the tragedy of a multiple shooting which costs 10's of millions of dollars......ounce of prevention - pound of cure - maybe you've never heard of that - but I doubt it.

The judge has his/her domain, the courtroom, and they have ultimate rule in the courtroom. I do not really have an issue with that. The handful of times I have been in a courtroom for whatever reason, i have always found the judges to be very up front and clear about what the rules are in their domain. So when I watch someone violate those rules right in front of the judge, I think the judge has every right to be pissed off and do whatever is necessary to regain control of that domain. Of course, every power has abuses, and I know they exist out there, but I have yet to see it myself.

agreed

before you further promote the 'sensational headline' - let's wait to see what, if ANYTHING he actually gets convicted of. If he GOT 75 years, yes, the headline would be accurate, and the law would be absurd. None of that has happened yet, nor for the other two mentioned in the article.

there is no such thing as a 'death panel'. There never was, and there never will be. It is a fictional entity made up by the right wing to scare people.

BINGO - we have a winner. But health care of any sort is not free - once again you failed to read even the post prior to your last one. And I am all for 'law abiding and responsible gun owners' having guns. How do you propose that we we determine who is law abiding and responsible....?

not sure what illusion YOU might be under, but I have never claimed that I (we) would not have to shell out the money.....health care costs money. I have always advocated health care for all, I have always advocated to pay for it through the tax system. again, nice try but we have been down this road before so your taunts are mostly rhetoric - and I actually think you are smarter than that.

been down that road before with you mnealtx, and you know the answer already - nice try. The fact that businesses cannot afford to buy health care for their employees is actually the PROBLEM, not an excuse to avoid the SOLUTION.....

It will not fail for the corporations, but it will fail for the American people (most likely). There is still hope that the people come to their senses and choose a govt willing to mandate single payer Medicare, whatever you want to call it for everyone. We did it in 1965, and we created Society Security for all. We can do this too. It will just take time

ONCE AGAIN - I am not advocating the elimination of all crime - the title is (sarcastically) more guns LESS crime. ONCE AGAIN - I am not advocating MANDATORY mental health screening. perhaps you can hear me now.....

mental health care is less than available. It is the 'bastard child' part of the health-care system. Not sure where you think mental health care would be available for your average American without them shoveling it out of their own pocket. And you know EXACTLY what I mean - try not to play dumb please, I think you are smarter than that. I do believe this stuff, yes. Mental health care is only 'free' in this country if you are in prison. I have mental health care allowance in my health care plan and i have one of the better plans available in Florida. If I had issues, I would have to shell out THOUSANDS of dollars to get help. The Arizona shooting in the end will cost tens of millions of dollars. Now which is cheaper....?

wrong - you can offer mental health services to everyone, and surprisingly enough, a lot of people will voluntarily come forward and get it, either by themselves, or through family/job/social/whatever pressures. SOME of those people will be the nut-job that you are referring to, and that will eventually trickle down to the prevention of nut-jobs-shooting-up-schools. at least in part. AA prevents a lot of drunk drivers. We do not have to 'force' people to go to AA. The service is offered and people go. Mental health care is also only a small part of the overall changes to society that have to happen; education, overall health care, social safety nets so the 'nut-job could perhaps be less 'futile' in their thoughts. and as I said earlier, it is cheaper than prison/medical bills/lawsuits/social impact and all the things that come out of the tragedies like Arizona. Or you can be a defeatist and say that we cannot fix it. whether you believe you can or you believe you can't, either way you're right.

I am not suggesting that it stay in its current form, I am suggesting that it change to cover everyone and then get the funding it needs by removing all the other programs that compete with it (as one, but not the only example) And Medicare is seen by whom as the biggest demon in our future debts? 'cause I for one do not see it that way. Nor do tens of thousands, if not millions of people in this country. I see the demolition of manufacturing in this country as one of the demons. I see two wars as two of the demons. I see the prison system combined with the 'war on drugs' as one of the demons......

and in similar related news, millions of handguns in use every day in the USA did NOTHING to stop crime today, or for any other day for that matter......

I know that - and I was suggesting that we FUND it, which would solve that problem, instead of 'cutting it' which would increase that problem - or perhaps you missed that. So I clarified it for you.

I never suggested 'rounding them up' - we already do that. It's called prison. Yes, in the inevitable case that someone was to come to Skydive City and mow the place down with a machine gun and flame-thrower, yes, in that inevitable fine-line, 1 in a billion case, I would hope that EVERYONE there has a flamethrower and a machine gun of their own. But that is really not going to happen is it? So instead I chose to NOT have everyone at SKydive City have a flamethrower and a machine gun. look at the number of gun crimes. Look at the number of times that guns were used to stop a crime. Look at the total number of violent crimes, which is huge, I would argue that having a gun to 'prevent or lessen crime' is therefore ineffective. I really appreciate how you put words in my mouth.....is that the only way you can argue or do you actually have data to back up your 'fairy dust'

I bet the insurance company knows just how many people out there need mental health care.....

defeatist |diˈfētist| noun a person who expects or is excessively ready to accept failure. adjective demonstrating expectation or acceptance of failure : we have a duty not to be so defeatist. DERIVATIVES defeatism |-tizəm| noun ORIGIN early 20th cent.: from French défaitiste, from défaite ‘

agreed - due to $$ cuts, not bureaucracy and poor govt oversight. I am actually advocating that we FUND it , not cut it. Eliminate the VA, eliminate Medicaid, eliminate all state and local programs - and there is plenty of funding for Medicare for all.

sort of a defeatist attitude I think. If this is as good as its going to get, that does not say much for the American system as a whole...... and I am advocating better mental health care for everyone in the USA, available to all, through a system OTHER than the prison system, which it pretty much where it lies today. That would be far cheaper than all the stuff I listed, which you appear to have ignored. Humans are not unpredictable - we are VERY predictable - insurance companies base their rates on it every day. Recorded history demonstrates that we will continue to make the same stupid mistakes over and over again - yet we are capable of better - oh wait - you disagreed that we are capable of any better. TK

on that we disagree. Without govt oversight, the industry runs amuck http://www.fiercehealthcare.com/story/aetnas-ron-williams-ceo-compensation/2009-05-14 That is just ONE executive in one company. His salary alone pays for the same health care plan that I get at $400/month for 60,000 people. millions and millions of people are denied affordable health insurance because of the greed of these people.