High court strikes down Chicago handgun ban

Remove all ads!

That's quite common in a socialised healthcare system. Instead of triaging patients by how much they can afford to pay, they are triaged according to age. The young will almost always receive preference in regards to elective surgery.

 

This is wildly off-topic but no system is perfect. What I do know is that in countries that have "socialised" health care it is beyond popular it is seen as a right, as something natural and self evident and that going without it is unthinkable. My best friend got drunk two weeks ago, climbed a statue, fell down, shattered his elbow, broke his hand and got some other random injuries. Ambulance came and picked up him up, they put him in a room. Within 24h he was in surgery, complicated surgery that took several hours where they reconstructed the elbow with titanium plates and screws and stuff. He spent another day in the hospital, a room for himself and any drug he needed. This didn't cost him anything. He will get rehab treatment until he is well. No paperwork, no nothing.

I can't understand how people do not want that. Even if care for some reason is given first to those who can reap the most benefit from it and not to the one who can pay the most.

As for the topic at hand, guns are bad mmkay. If you like guns you have a small penis mmkay.

 

No, wait, nothing.

So you "simply observed" the obvious - that it was publicly funded? Wow, that's quite an "observation." Congrats.

I would consider Barmy to be a "real live" Brit as well. That people have differing opinions within their own country is not surprsing.

 

I think discussing health care is perfectly on topic in a threat on SCOTUS striking down Chicago's handgun ban. That is my opinion, so I win the debate!

 

Thanks. I just thought I'd just bring it up, since Barmy seemed to forget for a moment that the health care in his country isn't actually free.

---------- Added 0 hours, 13 minutes and 21 seconds later... ----------

So if you had paid your taxes to the government for 40 years, you would be quite happy to wait 25 years for elective surgery, while a 20 year old on unemployment only had a wait of 6 months?

That hardly seems just. Why should those who have provided less in taxation and contributions to the community receive special preference when it comes to communal goods and services that the tax money has funded?

When anyone points out this blatant injustice, socialists inevitably respond with something of the lines of "You will harm your fellow cows! Shut up! Stop expecting fair treatment!" It seems like simple justice and fairness are alien concepts in today's society.

 

I think it seems perfectly just and I would wager most older people would say the same. There are quite a few people around who aren't narrowly selfish not to mention that the benefit to society is much greater if the unemployed 20 year old could get well and better equipped to get a job than for an old man be slightly more comfortable in his old age. In the best of world both would get their surgery though and in all honestly most of the time both do.

I would be interested in hearing what you perceive justice and fairness to be. I would also like to welcome you to the boards, we have lacked a controversial figure here recently.

 

Giving preferential treatment to someone when they have provided far less does not strike me as just. But I guess we are going to have to agree to disagree here.

Most? That's debatable. Also note that even if 'most' agree to surrender their right to fair treatment, it is morally reprehensible for them to deny the remainder of their group fair treatment.

Wait. So now it's selfish to expect *fair* treatment?!

Hell, I'm not even saying that the elderly should be placed before the young on waiting lists, I'm just saying that age shouldn't be a determinant. Patients shouldn't be subjected to age-based discrimination.

By the way, when I read what you wrote, I kept hearing: "Shut up, you will harm your fellow cows!" over and over again in my head.

So the comfort of the elderly is a triviality to you? You care more about the questionable 'greater good' than the fair treatment of all individuals within a collective? It's nice to know that if your grandmother required a joint replacement for a worn hip that was preventing her from living independently, you wouldn't have a problem with her being placed on the elective surgery waiting list for 25 years. After all, the comfort of an old person doesn't really matter.

Well, if an elder is lucky, they might get their surgery before they die.

LOL, what? Why the hell do you need me to tell you what is just and fair? Surely you should know yourself? Or have you lived in a socialised society for so long, that you have forgotten?'

Thanks.

 

It seems to me that the difference is between rewarding behavior that has already been observed and rewarding behavior that is expected, rewarding potential in other words. Since there's no guarantee that the 20-year-old will ever be a productive member of society (especially if he has much of a criminal record), investing in him is a gamble. On the other hand, investing in the elder who has already contributed is an investment for minimal reward. Sure, he's got a track-record of performance, and at the very least you're encouraging others to perform well themselves, but it's not terribly likely he'll contribute much more. I don't really think either idea is 'better' per se, and both have their problems in application.

 

I didn't ask you to tell me what justice and fairness is, I asked you to tell me what your perception of those things are as it seems we are of differing opinions.

I would be happy to continue this discussion in the thread that is dedicated towards health care discussion. It is a bit far down but it is here. I also think it would be of popular interest to know where you are from Mordea as it is always nice to have some knowledge of the person you are discussing with. Most of the time the discussions here are between Americans and Europeans and I would wager that you are neither, it would be interesting to know a little bit about your background as it seems to be different from most of us here.

 

Hey! I can buy booze here in Utah. It's just cheaper and stronger elsewhere... Also, I'd rather pay the state alcohol tax to a state that doesn't have its head stuck up its own arse when it comes to liquor laws. Usually, I only make the pilgrimage to Wyoming if I plan on spending $100 to $200+ on booze.

Also, why the hell would I want the mail as a prize? The USPS is broke, and staffed by morons that crush boxes and then 'lose' them for a month or so.


Back on the subject of guns... As per tradition, my dad shot off his black powder rifle last night for the 4th of July. No bullet...just 3x to 4x the normal amount of gunpowder needed, and a couple extra wadding pads. Damn thing sounds like a howitzer being fired...the flash and smoke from the barrel is pretty cool too.
If he doesn't shoot it, the neighbors are disappointed. I still hear about the 2008 'incident'. He didn't shoot it there, because everyone came over to my house for the 4th that year.

 

Whatever! On another thread you commented that you had to drive to WO, to buy booze and fireworks (both of which I can buy at the corner)* And stronger? How so?

Beer that's 3.2?

Lower taxes? Is that the reason? Well, that's probably worth it - can't blame you there, Kit. Also, what's with the "Utah state liquor store" gig?

*Can't buy booze from midnight to noon on Sunday - just a token, to satisfy the Baptists.

USPS works fine for me. They must have it out for you.

 

First off, Wyoming is abbreviated ‘WY’ not ‘WO’.

Let’s put it this way, if you lived here, you would understand exactly why a trip to Wyoming to get several or more cases of good beer (that’s the correct %abv that the rest of the world enjoys) is very good idea. Utah slaps on a special liquor tax, a state sales tax, a local sales tax, and fees based on how much you’re buying..also, the base price is usually $0.50 to $5 more than in WY (example, a 750ml bottle of Grey Goose was $28 in WY, but in UT it’s $32). If I'm buying a lot of booze for a massive party, the $$$ I save actually outweighs the cost of gas to get there. Plus, its a very nice senic drive through the mountains.
The liquor stores here are called, “State Liquor Store” because the state owns the property, the products, and the employees. The stores are usually open 9am to 9pm, and are always closed on Sundays, holidays, and election day. I dissapprove of Utah's retarded taxes and laws, so I choose to do my business elsewhere when I can.

USPS works fine for me too; as long as it’s a letter or a magazine. If it’s small package or larger...forgetaboutit!

 

Sorry -- I never have to go there to buy MY booze.

That would be the day....

Wow. Sorry to hear that, Kit. It sucks for you.

That was pretty much my original point.

Btw, that's called an ellipsis and it generally gets three dots, not two:

http://grammar.ccc.commnet.edu/grammar/marks/ellipsis.htm

Have a nice day.

 

Yeah, that's one really stupid thing we Baptists do. Didn't you read your bible, Deacon? Jesus made wine as his first miracle! I say we should have a holiday dedicated to celebrating that!

And just to keep things on-topic, we can celebrate it by firing off black-powder rifles with 4X powder, double wadding, and no ball!

...

Wait, guns + beer = ... Ok, never mind.

 

Funny

 

Actually, loading guns with beer would probably make them a lot less dangerous than loading them with bullets.

 

That was a funny, NOG.

Well, if the topic is now fireworks, I really don't know about black-powder guns in Texas. Fireworks are perfectly legal in our county and I get them at a stand on the corner. But if you fire a gun in Texas, (even in the air) someone will probably shoot back.

 

Touché...

I know what an ellipsis is...I use such grammatical punctuation all the time. It was clearly a typo. You on the other hand...well; I'd expect you to know your state abbreviations.

So there.

---------- Added 0 hours, 9 minutes and 20 seconds later... ----------

LMFAO!

Rep'ed!

NOG & CtR - A black powder rifle doesn't sound like a typical gun....it's more like a cannon; and with the amount of black powder my dad uses, it feels like a cannon too!

Not sure if that's exactly legal since it *is* a firearm, and it is being shot within city limits...but since it's more like a 'blank', it might be ok. I really don't care enough to find out.

 

Sorry, I noticed it was wrong after I typed it and meant to go back and change it, but the kids were in my office wanting me to help them in the kitchen, so I never got back to it.

Kit - Just for you I'll put that on my list of the "Expectation of Others." I should warn you though that it's gotten to be a very long list, since I really don't give it very much effort.

 

Black powder is much more reactive than gunpowder, and it does make a much greater boom when you use it. However, if the only thing you put it in is some wadding, and there isn't an actual bullet in there, I'm not sure if it counts as being illegal. (It certainly still counts as a firearm, but I'd think the greatest danger lies with the person firing it.)