• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

"Security For America Act"?

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
exdeath said:
That's the difference between a lefty and righty: left doesn't want a gun and doesn't think anyone else should be allowed to have on either. Righty wants a gun, he buys one, otherwise he doesn't buy one, and that's the end of it.
Click to expand...
That's the difference between a righty and a lefty: right doesn't want to marry someone of the same sex and doesn't think anyone else should be allowed to marry one either. Lefty wants to marry someone of the same sex, he does, otherwise he doesn't and that's the end of it.

Same-sex marriage is just one of countless examples. You partisan hacks are ridiculous. You both want to control other's lives. You just focus on different areas. Neither of you really supports liberty.
 
Do we draw from a fund to ensure that the poor all have guns and ammo as well? Then I'm absolutely for this law.

Let your paranoid fantasies come to life, my lovelies.
 
Only if I start seeing too many teabaggers move into my neighborhood would I ever think that such a law would be necessary.
 
highland145 said:
Referring to S. Dakota bill?

No.
Click to expand...

lol. introducing a bill that he knows will be killed, only "tp prove a point."

what a bunch of nutters. small government, no waste, all respect.

Do you guys honestly believe that line about these people that you elect?

I would love to know how much taxpayer money is going into these idiots' schoolyard antics and time wasted from actually doing meaningful work. These are the fucks you people voted in to "Clean up waste!"


"We The People!" have spoken indeed!

😀😀😀
 
zinfamous said:
How does multiple projections showing $300-400 billion in savings over 10 years = wasteful farce?

:hmm:

You must have some interesting source material.
Click to expand...


Add in costs to pass the legislation, court costs (already and forthcoming), etc. That's assuming it even stays valid, which is questionable at best right now.
 
If you don't have health insurance, and incur catastrophic medical expenses at ER which you can't repay, everyone else is on the hook for them. You are imposing an externality on other taxpayers, so there is a legitimate reason to require you to cover your own risk.

If you don't have a gun and get robbed, it's your problem alone. That so called "free market" "conservatives" fail to grasp this very simple economic distinction is very telling.
 
zinfamous said:
why am I required to have car insurance when I buy a car?

:hmm:
Click to expand...

You are required to have comprehensive coverage until you pay off the car because you do not own it yet, after that you can opt for liability only to compensate other drivers if you cause a wreck.
 
xj0hnx said:
You are required to have comprehensive coverage until you pay off the car because you do not own it yet, after that you can opt for liability only to compensate other drivers if you cause a wreck.
Click to expand...

It was more of a hypothetical, but OK.

😀

so how about this, shouldn't we be able to opt for a liability-type health coverage to cover the cost of our personal costs wrecking the system (unnecessary emergency room visits, hypochondriacs, willfully poor health...)?

:hmm:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top