Social security isn't a hand out. It is a HORRIBLE investment program that has been warped and disfigured from it's original purpose. At least people HAVE been paying into it for a LONG time. I'm not exactly surprised that they want to reap SOME sort of benefit for it.

Tax breaks (that favor specific companies or markets) are government handouts. Speaking of solar, how did our government handout for Solyndra do? Must have been a Red state... no?

Medicare as well is something that has been taken out of people's checks (you know, people with actual jobs) for a long long time. Again, not surprising that people expect to get something for that...

In my experience, in general country folk are very independent folk and are generally self reliant. If you want to find locations in the USA where people thrive off of governmental handouts, pick up a map that shows all the blue counties/parishes/districts/etc.

For a group that CLAIMS they don't want handouts, they sure do have their arms outstretched, palms up constantly. Of course, they say a tax break isn't a handout (unless it's a tax break for, say, installing solar), they say social security isn't a handout, Medicare isn't a handout ('keep your government hands out of my Medicare' was my favorite tea party slogan).
True, the ACA wasn't voluntary, but all those other programs they use (and usually use more than they contribute, and more than "blue" states) are voluntary, so that argument falls flat.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

Would be crazy if Trump plan is single payer healthcare ala expansion of Medicare. But nah, probably not - will be savings accounts ... and awful.

Over 50% of docs in Canada are primary care. In the USA, it's around 30%. The problem is too many specialists in the USA doing too many procedures and not enough docs doing basic care. Why? Thank Medicare, which continues to reimburse very highly specialists, especially when doing procedures, and not so much pediatricians, family practice, etc. Who can blame medical students for being specialists when the average USA debt after med school is $300k. Oh, but the USA welcomes foreign trained docs, who were trained at no expense to them because other countries' governments pay for their medical training (mostly). This "shortage" problem can be easily fixed: Cut reimbursements for procedures INCLUDING those done in hospitals (seen the incomes of hospital CEO's lately?), raise those for primary care visits. Is that what Obama and buddies are doing? Hell, no. MACRA, the biggest looming disaster for the poor, old and sick is coming. Here, low paid primary care docs (what few there are) will no longer be paid per visit but by how well their patients do. What will happen? In order to be paid, docs will only see (you can see this, right?) the healthy, the young, and the rich (who can pay for their medications) . . . and the mentally competent, because crazy/stupid people won't follow instructions and will just have bad outcomes (means no money). Yup, Medicare and Obamarama have created the biggest healthcare tar pit in the world, and your all heading toward it full speed.

18 USC 922 :
- Is a danger to himself or others
- Lacks mental capacity to contract or manage his own affairs
- Is found insane by a court in a criminal case
- Is found incompetent to stand trial, or not guilty by lack of mental responsibility pursuant to articles 50a [blah blah blah]

The second line item is what applies to persons assigned a fiduciary due to a failure to manage their financial affairs (which is often elderly people).
This is why gun rights groups are crying about new measures to link medicare to the background check system.

But generally, yes, you have to do something to demonstrate that you're mental, in order to be found mental.

Gun registration is not required to know who has guns. The background check tells LEO which dealer ran it and about who. They go to the dealer and acquire the sale forms (retained at dealer by law) regarding that person.

The purpose of registration is not to know who has guns - that part is already known. Registration makes it a legal requirement to demonstrate custody. If you can't present a registered firearm, you're a criminal. Hence you have no ability to hide a registered firearm, because the act of hiding it sends you to jail. A large subset of gun owners have firearms strictly for "SHTF" (shit hits the fan). They squirrel them away with some food, and have them 'just in case' the world goes tits up. That's the segment of gun owners that drive against gun registration. They don't want their emergency kit confiscated by the government during a disaster (like happened during Katrina), and they don't want to go to jail for hiding it either.

In general, personally, I have nothing against training.
Ironically, AFAIK, LEO are the biggest offenders when it comes to accidental discharge (which makes sense, given that they point guns at people more often than regular folk, so their accidents are deadlier.).
(Police also commit [non-police-work-related] murder at a rate 8 x that of the general population.)
Training is an easy low hanging fruit to grab on to when looking for 'something to do [legislatively]', but in practice it isn't as significant as people would imagine. People that like to shoot will be well practiced, and are overall safe. Folks that bury their guns in a closet for emergencies won't be well practiced, but won't normally be in a position of opportunity to make mistakes.
Folks that legally concealed carry (hence are managing a firearm throughout the day) require a license that requires training in order to acquire. Granted, it's really not a hard test. It's driver's ed level proficiency. Just enough so you know which end to point where, you know what the controls do, and can hit a target inside of a required accuracy.
I honestly don't know the most common causes of accidental discharge - but I would assume that most are gonna be split between flubbing it with a holster (butter fingers), or forgetting to eject a chambered round after removing a magazine (derping out).

-scheherazade

I disagree with 1/2 of libertarian thinking, simply because I think they get too simplistic with 'just make government tiny, that's always best'. Clearly, deregulation is NOT always what's best, nor is eradicating all social programs (keep in mind, that includes roads, parks, police, firemen, the EPA, the FBI, the FCC, the FEC, Social Security, Medicare/aid, etc.). Most of those programs have SAVED America money and helped individuals too, both in the short and long term, not cost us or hobbled them, when you factor in all costs involved.
BUT, their social stances are EXACTLY what I want...equal protection under the law for all, freedom to decide what's immoral to each individual, and limits on government powers, especially against citizens.

If I can't vote for Sanders, I likely WILL vote for this guy over Trump or Clinton. Even though I don't think he has a chance to win...it could help in 4 years.

I get your point, but I think it should be 'Procedure A will cost you $______....assuming there are no complications."
I actually must disagree about your analogy of the car...because it is like taking your car to a shop but not knowing exactly what's wrong...chances are the price they quote for the service they THINK will solve the problem won't be the final price because they're just guessing at what they'll have to do...they can't KNOW there won't be rusted bolts or other damage that's only visible after taking the timing cover off. That said, they CAN give you a quote for taking the timing cover off, and if pressed, for replacing the cracked block if that's behind it. Hospitals absolutely refuse to estimate, or to give a solid price for a specific service. I think that's the big problem, as it allows them to charge you one price and me another, and insurance another, Medicare another, etc. It's the floating price scheme that's unconscionable, especially for services that are life and death when you can't say "no thanks". It allows them to 'serve' you THEN tell you the aspirin they gave you costs $800. That's unfair by any reasoning.

The GOP never to this point kowtowed to that part of the base anyway until they decided to attempt to harness the energy of that faction to the point that this faction has a stranglehold of the party, and yet are wholly ignorant on the issues. We're talking about people who hold up signs that read "Keep your government hands off my medicare" caliber people. Or people who think Obama isn't an American. Or people who think Obama is "a complete socialized take over of health care". Stuff like that which is so obviously untrue, it's laughable.

And I want to be clear. I'm not accusing the right of having a monopoly on stupid people in their base. There's PLENTY of stupid liberals. The difference is the Democratic party is doing a far better job of keeping their idiots supporting them without enacting what those idiots want or succumbing to their idiocy.

Here's proof - how many times do you see Democratic leaders constantly say crap like George W. Bush is a war criminal for Iraq? Name a Democratic presidential candidate who actually has said over and over again that Ted Cruz isn't a US citizen? Donald Trump, the current GOP frontrunner, over and over again insists Obama isn't a US citizen, as have many many Republican Congressmen.

When the GOP signed the deal with the devil so to speak by trying to co-opt the Tea Party movement, this was the inevitable outcome. The Tea Party has been hijacked twice by my count because the people within it are so incredibly ignorant, they don't seem to realize what they stand for. It was Libertarian in the beginning both socially and economically. Then it got hijacked to become more socially conservative and economically conservative. Now, it's been hijacked by Donald Trump, who nobody actually even knows what he is socially or economically at this point overall.

Why did this happen? Because GOP support is so contaminated and dominated by so much ignorance, you can have a TV personality say a bunch of stupid crap they want to hear but is certifiably absurd, that he can become the front runner. Building a wall to keep the Mexicans out, no matter how you feel about illegal immigration as far as ideals go, is simply not a practical solution to stop illegal immigration. You can't make Mexico pay for a wall even if you built it. Obama wasn't born in Kenya. Replacing Obamacare with something "terrific" is NOT a policy proposal; it's non-specific anti-Obama BS to make people who hate Obama love you. He could replace it with "Trumpcare" which could be basically Obamacare, and that could be "something terrific" for all you know.

Trump and Cruz don't exist without the Tea Party, and the Tea Party wouldn't be a thing if the GOP didn't decide to eventually attempt to galvanize it. Well, mission accomplished, but you're never going to get the support of the growing minority segments of the population. You've forfeited the support of moderates like myself, too. And young people by enlarge are rejecting this version of the GOP big time. Women are increasingly rejecting it, too.

Your second point... Umm, big fat no.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/03/21/the-last-presidential-candidate-who-was-as-unpopular-as-donald-trump-david-duke/

WTF?!? "Tangible plan"? What on earth could you possibly mean by that?
The "plan" to round up over 11 million people and deport them, but with zero details about it?
The "plan" to make Mexico pay to build a 2500 mile wall, with zero details about how?
The "plan" to illegally deny fugitives entry to states because, you know, Muslims are bad...MmmmK?
The "plan" to skew the tax system even more in favor of those in the top 5%, to the detriment of the middle and lower classes?
His "plan" to be a smarmy, dickish, douchebag to anyone that isn't in his camp...but also to completely control those people to make them do exactly what he wants...again with zero details how he plans to do so?
The "plan" to force China to...I don't know...ignore all our debt and treat us like the boss we are?

As for Clinton's being 'currently under Federal investigation by America's FBI department.'...the "email scandal" has, just like Benghazi, turned up absolutely zero illegal behavior and is nothing more than a red herring designed by the (absolutely not) "conservative" side of our political system, has gone absolutely no where, and only matters to people who would NEVER have voted for her in the first place...if you think differently, you really need to get out of the Fox bubble and look around at reality for a bit.

Little could be more disastrous for the country than having that vitriolic humanoid pumpkin as our 'leader', since the only successful leading he's ever done is leading people to hate each other, and leading far more people to hate HIM. He's a fairly terrible business man, successful only due to starting with a "tiny loan" (his words, really more of a gift from daddy) of a million dollars and being forced to allow others to take control of his investments. He's a bold faced liar, in fact the truth does not seem to be palatable to him in the least....and he's clearly admitted that in his books and sees it as a good thing to hyper exaggerate and minimize. He's a 'good Christian', who's been divorced how many times? There's no way on earth his plans would even be tried. He (and other republican candidates) don't even have a grasp of what the president does or how, claiming they'll 'repeal the ACA on day one', and they'll discard multiple government departments...somethings the president simply CAN'T just do...along with most of their other ridiculous, impossible 'plans'. They all know they wouldn't actually have that power, yet they all lie to you and tell you they will do the hateful things they've convinced you are the right thing to do by themselves. Fortunately our system is designed so that one nutjob, or even one party of nutjobs can't change laws precipitously.

I hate to tell you, but Bernie Sanders is not excluded for being honest and knowledgeable. ALL candidates are socialist, he's just honest enough to admit it. Tax breaks for the rich...socialism. Bailouts for the airlines and banks...socialism. Social security...socialism. Medicare...socialism. "jobs programs"...socialism. Public parks...socialism. Public roads...socialism. Need I go on?

Your mischaracterization of Obama's record is so patently ridiculous it's not worth contradicting.

Two words: Wraparound Services

Look it up.

It can be used for more than just youth. I facilitated that model for 6 years to great success. Unfortunately, John Oliver is right when it comes to funding - you can't keep great therapists on board doing good work when your budget is constantly getting cut due to Medicare reimbursement rate cuts.

The private sector (i.e. private group and individual practices) really are the ones picking up the slack from community mental health agencies funding and therapist attrition issues.

If reimbursement rates to the private sector from private insurance starts going down even more than it already is then we're all screwed.

Again, I totally disagree. The 'road tax' is the same kind of social program as SS and Medicare. If you don't understand that not having hoards of indigent elderly, uneducated, and infirmed on those streets is a good thing, we'll never see eye to eye.

Per dollar per family? That makes no sense to me...it's either one or the other.

The law of Jante is a derogative term from the 1930's. If it applies today and most people dislike it, it's incredibly odd that a democratic country didn't change by now. What I read said the term now refers to people trying to 'climb the social ladder'. (a thing that would be impossible if the original 'law of Jante' was reality and everyone was the same status)

I'll await comment from someone who lives there, like @BicycleRepairMan, because I'm far more interested in what he thinks about this than what you or I think about it.

It depends...social security, about 1937, medicare, more like 65, public schools, that depends on what you want to call different systems, but in North America it started in 1647
https://www.raceforward.org/research/reports/historical-timeline-public-education-us
The road bit is a PERFECT example of how, even if you don't directly use a service, you benefit from others using it....just like EVERY OTHER SERVICE MENTIONED.
Because we don't deny medical services to those without money, it's a question of do you pay less beforehand or more later, because either way you pay.
Because uneducated children cost society FAR more than educating them does, standing on your myopic moral high ground demanding 'personal parental responsibility' is a self defeating stance demanding people 'give' more than some have to give with no option for the children of the poor. (That said, I can get behind the 'public schools being free only for the poor' plan I think Jefferson had, as long as those schools are on par with private one's)
I explained clearly why even those average numbers are misleading.
Again, is that purchasing power per dollar, per person, or what?
OK, 'middle class' is not the average American. How about give the average American salary instead of cherry picking a rapidly shrinking sub-group that makes your point?
We all pay through the nose...it's just about when and how. You pay for the indigent by paying higher insurance and medical bills...it would be FAR cheaper to simply pay for their medical care in the first place (as in single payer health care). That saves the 10-25% that insurance companies take as profit on day one, and saves on overall medical care cost per person by properly taking care of people instead of waiting until there's an expensive emergency to pay for. (and makes a much healthier, so happier society as a whole)
The fact is that they are happy with their system. It does not make them all 'perfectly equal', there are rich and poor in Norway...or do you not believe that? People DO get ahead in Norway, probably more so than the average person in America who has seen their financial/social status in life, purchasing power, benefits, opportunities, and security go backwards over the last 40 years, unlike Norway.
No, I think the entire 'identical to everyone else' thing is something in YOUR head, not theirs, and not reality.
Don't have disposable income?!? In Norway, not the US?!?! You've GOT to be kidding. Let's ask someone who lives there...@BicycleRepairMan , is there only one social class in Norway, all equal, all making the same amount of money, all poor and destitute with no disposable income?
Well, the American system certainly disagrees with you. Those that put the most effort into their jobs usually make FAR less than those that put little effort into taking advantage of the opportunities available to them, but not to others. Those that make more in our society almost NEVER do it with manual labor, the hardest work to do. They also rarely do 2 or 3 full time jobs, as many poor must do. It's simply not true that working harder gets you advancement in the US, opportunity and connections get you advancement.
I do agree, giving medals for average/expected performance is ridiculous, but that rarely happens in business.

Any person who believes in or supports a system where you pay far more for a far inferior product is a moron. End of story. People can wave the catchphrases around as much as they like, but that is fucking stupidity. In which case, "socialism" is the opposite of stupidity, even in socialist lite countries like Australia.

My father in law is having 2 femoral bypass surgeries in the next 2 months. Completely free, air conditioned 2 bed room, free medication (oxycodone for the win), free at home post op care visits, very little waiting (isn't an emergency but is urgent enough to not be considered elective). Great surgeons and other staff. Food still sucks (it's a hospital of course), but if that's the worst complaint that can be made about the system that costs 7% less of GDP than the US and freely hands out so very much more, I know what I would choose...

BK33, does your sister receive free or reduced cost care under medicare? If so, the system has worked for her. She can now put those premiums towards other costs, or savings for retirement or w/e she wants to. It might not be optimal, but it's a far sight better than close to 20k a year...

Wait...please explain how your sisters situation not working out? She was paying $500 a month, now she pays nothing and CAN'T be refused if her policy lapses (which now can't happen). If Medicare doesn't cover everything her original plan did, she could buy a supplemental plan that would for way less than $500 a month.
I agree there are winners and losers in the plan, but that sounds like a winner to me.
Every gripe I've ever heard about the ACA would have been solved 100% by a single payer system for all, Obama's original plan. Too bad that failed to be even considered.

I am truly glad for your situation.

My sister was paying 500$/mo in premiums since she has Crohn's. When she went to sign up for an equivalent new policy when all this started her premium went up to 1600$/mo.
Due to her age she just ended up signing up for medicare.

Your situation worked out and my sisters isnt.
There are still winners and losers under Obama care.