G27

Not a big Bill O'Reilly fan, but kudos to him for this. Very nice.

You can donate here: Lance Cpl. Matthew A. Snyder

I'm with you.

Even if it 'blades'!

Hahaha, man, some special kinda stupid in that family.

Hahaha, nicely played.

I did, maybe you should try reading comprehension. The implication of your post is that mandatory insurance is fine for autos as one person may affect another. Carrying that over by mentioning flu is silly, as regardless of insurance, the flu does what it does. Your analogy is broken, is that clear enough?

You think health insurance is going to make any difference in flu contraction and / or deaths? Seriously? I mean, I automatically dismiss most everything you say as you have such a warped perspective on, well, seemingly everything, but the thought that people with health insurance don't contract the flu is especially laughable.

Here are some facts about how bad US health care is compared to Europe: Life expectancy, in years: EU: 78.67 US: 78.11 Yah, it's obvious that health care in the US is far worse - Europeans average living 6 months longer.

Yah, those in power want to blame everyone but themselves, but the 'white flight' (specifically those with the means to get away from Memphis) has been utterly amazing over the last 15 years. The outlying suburbs of Lakeland, Collierville, Arlington and a few others have seen an explosion of growth of higher income families tired of overpaying for poor services. For some perspective, I just finished compiling my tax info for my accountant and found this for 2009: - rental house we own in Memphis, ~1200 ft2, property tax ~$1100. - residence in an outlying town, ~3500 ft2, property tax ~$700. We get better services from our town and it's a MUCH safer area, both on a personal level and investment-wise. While Memphis isn't as bad as Detroit, it may be in a few years. From the numbers I've seen, the city population is on decline (the census results will tell us one way or the other), which is bad news - it means the tax base is continuing to leave...

Gonna sip on some Buffalo Trace...

Hahhaa, seriously? First of, why do you think those 32 million don't already pay for insurance? Too lazy to write the check? Secondly, you really think that that influx of cash doesn't mean there will be a equal amount of cash flow OUT of the insurance companies? You don't think that maybe the increase in folks who were denied coverage due to expensive pre-existing conditions will cause an overall increase of spending per capita? Thirdly, how will the increased minimum coverages make your rates DROP? Man, your idealistic (and/or entitlement) attitude is unreal.

Exactly how will that number lower? I keep hearing this, yet the minimum coverages from this law will increase virtually everyone's premiums. Tell me exactly how the premiums will be lowered.

The requirement for insurance is simple - as employers opt to pay the fine instead of the greatly increased premiums (based on the minimum coverages required by this law), more and more folks will be on the hook for their own insurance, but the premiums will be prohibitively high as the coverage required by law is expensive. Once the outcry against the evil opportunistic health insurance providers gets loud enough, they'll roll out Government Insurance like they wanted to from the beginning. Yah, personal responsibility - that could never work!We've finally reached the point where the entitlement mentatily has permeated enough of our culture that it's acceptable, even lauded, to take handouts.

Have you read anything in the bill which controls the premiums they can charge you? If so, please link them here. Everything I've seen just says they cannot deny coverage, but there are minimums of the coverage you have to buy. You think the insurance companies are going to provide this extra coverage at no extra charge, out of the goodness of their hearts? If this law makes it until 2014, get back to us and tell us how much your premiums have dropped. *stifles laughter* I wish there was an easy answer, but my loss of liberty shouldn't be an option.The reality is you liberals / progressives are willing to trade anything to achieve your idealistic utopia; 'freedom from worry or personal responsibility'. Please go do so elsewhere and leave my freedoms alone.

Straw man - I never claimed anyone was communist, rather simply stated that if you believe liberty is a chip to gamble with, you may as well concede that communism is the ideal solution to cure society's ills. If you remove liberty from the equation, communism is a great idea. And you miss my point entirely - this law is supposed to be about our own economy and people. If the government is going to impinge upon the people's freedom, why not do the same for the corporations, forcing them to only hire US citizens to fill the necessary jobs? Simple, because this whole thing isn't about health care or people's welfare, it's a power grab. And no, that's not sensationalism, though you can keep trying to undermine the truth with name calling and accusations, I truly don't care.

OK, so laws that will increase jobs overseas rather than here at home are OK as it's already happening. Nice logic.

And it appears some folks are confusing constitutional rights with personal wants. Were we anarchists last week? Under the old rules, where I choose to pay my own way? The fact is, we lost a little more liberty when this was signed into law - my choice to not carry health insurance is now gone (as are other choices wrt saving money by opting for 'leaner' insurance plans). What's sad is how so many folks are willing to accept this loss of liberty because they think it benefits them, or have a social outlook whereby they excuse it as it helps others. Truly sad.

So what? An ideal solution on paper is communism, is that a great idea, too? The reality is this law flies in the face of those of us who aren't willing to trade liberty for 'saving money' or 'what makes sense'.

Hey, at least this law will create new jobs! (in India) US healthcare reform is boon for India outsourcing companies / The Christian Science Monitor - CSMonitor.com

Well, despite the loss of liberty, at least this will save us money!

As for the topic at hand, my wife carries a P3AT, which, as I understand it, it quite similar. While the LCP is probably a better quality firearm, the most important aspect is size - it doesn't matter what you have in the safe, it's what you'll carry. For my wife, it was very important that it be very small and light, so that meant something like the P3AT/LCP. Not a fun gun to shoot, but better than nothing.

I pocket carry about 95% of the time.

Yah, just wait until the clamor for government insurance becomes deafening from those who cannot afford the gov't mandated minimum coverages from those evil private health insurance corporations. This is only the beginning, and if some folks want to walk around with blinders on thinking "sure, I'll give up a little liberty for some financial safety", they'll wake up eventually...

I'll tell you the main reason this law is bad - it's a reduction of my liberty. If you'll accept that for lower insurance rates then you're already lost. You think it's going to lower your rates? You think you're going to get all this required extra coverage for free?