Make the Gun Companies Pay Blood Money

[JoeB131]

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/24/opinion/make-gun-companies-pay-blood-money.html?_r=0

But there is a simple and direct way to make them accountable for the harm their products cause. For every gun sold, those who manufacture or import it should pay a tax. The money should then be used to create a compensation fund for innocent victims of gun violence.

This proposal is based on a fundamentally conservative principle — that those who cause injury should be made to “internalize” the cost of their activity by paying for it. Now, gun manufacturers and sellers are mostly protected from lawsuits by federal law.

As it happens, a model for this approach already exists. Under the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, those injured by vaccines are eligible for compensation from a fund financed by an excise tax on the sale of every dose of vaccine. In creating this no-fault system in the 1980s, Congress sought to provide care for those injured by vaccines while protecting manufacturers from undue litigation.

 

[Warrior102]

Guns don't kill people, stupid.

People kill people.

Next...

 

[JoeB131]

Guns make it easier to kill people.

Next.

 

[martybegan]

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/24/opinion/make-gun-companies-pay-blood-money.html?_r=0

But there is a simple and direct way to make them accountable for the harm their products cause. For every gun sold, those who manufacture or import it should pay a tax. The money should then be used to create a compensation fund for innocent victims of gun violence.

This proposal is based on a fundamentally conservative principle — that those who cause injury should be made to “internalize” the cost of their activity by paying for it. Now, gun manufacturers and sellers are mostly protected from lawsuits by federal law.

As it happens, a model for this approach already exists. Under the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, those injured by vaccines are eligible for compensation from a fund financed by an excise tax on the sale of every dose of vaccine. In creating this no-fault system in the 1980s, Congress sought to provide care for those injured by vaccines while protecting manufacturers from undue litigation.

The reason for the vaccine fund is that no manufacturer was going to make vaccines anymore without some protection from lawsuits that were based on know adverse reactions caused by introducing live/attenuated/dead versions of pathonegenic materials.

If the vaccines were found to be made incorrectly, or the effect was from some manufacturing error, the fund doesnt cover that. The fund covers the vaccine working as intended, but because the state mandates vaccination via school requirements, it covers any losses.

The object of your proposal, is to again make guns too expensive for people to own. The purpose of the vaccine fund was never to end vaccines, but to keep them under manufacture.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/24/opinion/make-gun-companies-pay-blood-money.html?_r=0

But there is a simple and direct way to make them accountable for the harm their products cause. For every gun sold, those who manufacture or import it should pay a tax. The money should then be used to create a compensation fund for innocent victims of gun violence.

This proposal is based on a fundamentally conservative principle — that those who cause injury should be made to “internalize” the cost of their activity by paying for it. Now, gun manufacturers and sellers are mostly protected from lawsuits by federal law.

As it happens, a model for this approach already exists. Under the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, those injured by vaccines are eligible for compensation from a fund financed by an excise tax on the sale of every dose of vaccine. In creating this no-fault system in the 1980s, Congress sought to provide care for those injured by vaccines while protecting manufacturers from undue litigation.

Unconstitutional

Plain and simple

 

[Warrior102]

Guns make it easier to kill people.

Next.

So do cars.

Idiot.

Next...

 

[ba1614]

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/24/opinion/make-gun-companies-pay-blood-money.html?_r=0

But there is a simple and direct way to make them accountable for the harm their products cause. For every gun sold, those who manufacture or import it should pay a tax. The money should then be used to create a compensation fund for innocent victims of gun violence.

This proposal is based on a fundamentally conservative principle — that those who cause injury should be made to “internalize” the cost of their activity by paying for it. Now, gun manufacturers and sellers are mostly protected from lawsuits by federal law.

As it happens, a model for this approach already exists. Under the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, those injured by vaccines are eligible for compensation from a fund financed by an excise tax on the sale of every dose of vaccine. In creating this no-fault system in the 1980s, Congress sought to provide care for those injured by vaccines while protecting manufacturers from undue litigation.

Unconstitutional

Plain and simple

The Constitution seems to take a backseat when it comes to progressives pushing their bullshit.

 

[healthmyths]

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/24/opinion/make-gun-companies-pay-blood-money.html?_r=0

But there is a simple and direct way to make them accountable for the harm their products cause. For every gun sold, those who manufacture or import it should pay a tax. The money should then be used to create a compensation fund for innocent victims of gun violence.

This proposal is based on a fundamentally conservative principle — that those who cause injury should be made to “internalize” the cost of their activity by paying for it. Now, gun manufacturers and sellers are mostly protected from lawsuits by federal law.

As it happens, a model for this approach already exists. Under the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, those injured by vaccines are eligible for compensation from a fund financed by an excise tax on the sale of every dose of vaccine. In creating this no-fault system in the 1980s, Congress sought to provide care for those injured by vaccines while protecting manufacturers from undue litigation.

That same concept is being applied in Obamacare with a tax on tanning salons that cause cancer.

So why not tax the group that have caused $850 billion a year in health care costs?

Using the same formula that a direct tax on their revenue should be used to help the 4 million people without health insurance that want and need it!

Tax the lawyers 10% as you suggest the gun makers and as Obamacare is doing now with tanning salons.

$200 billion a year in lawyers' gross revenue at 10% tax would pay a $5,000 a year premium for each and every one of the 4 million that want and need health insurance.

Then as the $850 billion a year in duplicate tests, referrals to specials decline so too would the tax % on lawyers decline.

Also hospitals would be required to be audited so outrageous markups sometimes 6,000% on services that hospitals bill Medicare/insurance companies.

The combination of reducing the $850 billion a year in "Defensive Medicine" cost the following survey shows and reducing the "padding and passing" on by hospitals would
easily reduce health care claim costs by $200 billion on more!

Physicians estimate the cost of defensive medicine in US at $650 to $850 billion per year. This is 26% to 34% of all US healthcare costs.

• Up to 92% of US physicians practice defensive medicine.
• 76% of physicians report that defensive medicine decreases patient access to healthcare.
• 53% of physicians report delaying new techniques, procedures, and treatments due to fear of lawsuits.
• Patients most affected by defensive medicine include those visiting emergency rooms and those requiring surgery.
• Women are most affected by defensive medicine.
• Emergency medicine, primary care, and OB/GYN physicians are most likely to practice defensive medicine.
• 79 to 83% of surgeons and OB/GYNs have been named in lawsuits.

Health News Observer ? Physicians Estimate The Cost Of Defensive Medicine In Us At 650 To 850 Bill Articles

1,231 physicians...(90%) Ninety percent of physicians surveyed said:
"doctors overtest and overtreat to protect themselves from malpractice lawsuits."
"Defensive medicine is when doctors order multiple tests, MRIs and other procedures, not because the patient needs them, but to protect against litigation based on allegations that something should have been done but wasn’t. according to the survey published Monday in Archives of Internal Medicine.
Besides more time-consuming appointments, patients are left with fewer services and less access to quality care as doctors either narrow their practices or leave the profession entirely."
Opinion | San Francisco Examiner

In a 2010 Jackson Healthcare Physician Survey one doctor noted: "I have to view every patient as a potential plaintiff.."

http://www.patientsforfaircompensation.org/media/7142/pfc_wp-0612_lr.pdf

 

[DiamondDave]

Guns make it easier to kill people.

Next.

SO do knives, hemlock, role, cars, rocks, spears, illegal drugs, home made explosives, etc...

 

[JoeB131]

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/24/opinion/make-gun-companies-pay-blood-money.html?_r=0

But there is a simple and direct way to make them accountable for the harm their products cause. For every gun sold, those who manufacture or import it should pay a tax. The money should then be used to create a compensation fund for innocent victims of gun violence.

This proposal is based on a fundamentally conservative principle — that those who cause injury should be made to “internalize” the cost of their activity by paying for it. Now, gun manufacturers and sellers are mostly protected from lawsuits by federal law.

As it happens, a model for this approach already exists. Under the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, those injured by vaccines are eligible for compensation from a fund financed by an excise tax on the sale of every dose of vaccine. In creating this no-fault system in the 1980s, Congress sought to provide care for those injured by vaccines while protecting manufacturers from undue litigation.

The reason for the vaccine fund is that no manufacturer was going to make vaccines anymore without some protection from lawsuits that were based on know adverse reactions caused by introducing live/attenuated/dead versions of pathonegenic materials.

If the vaccines were found to be made incorrectly, or the effect was from some manufacturing error, the fund doesnt cover that. The fund covers the vaccine working as intended, but because the state mandates vaccination via school requirements, it covers any losses.

The object of your proposal, is to again make guns too expensive for people to own. The purpose of the vaccine fund was never to end vaccines, but to keep them under manufacture.

Well it isn't my proposal. I wouldn't be that generous.

I would outright ban firearms, and only allow NON-Lethal weapons for home protection, which will get the job done and not kill household members.

But the problem with the gun manufacturers is that they are reckless in their marketting.

Most of us would say Nancy Lanza buying 12 guns because she expects the collapse of civilziation to be nuts.

The gun manufacturers see her as a prime market, and that's the problem.

 

[Rat in the Hat]

Guns make it easier to kill people.

Next.

SO do knives, hemlock, role, cars, rocks, spears, illegal drugs, home made explosives, etc...

Then everyone who makes those should have to pay blood money too.


Blood money for everyone!!!

 

[JoeB131]

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/24/opinion/make-gun-companies-pay-blood-money.html?_r=0

But there is a simple and direct way to make them accountable for the harm their products cause. For every gun sold, those who manufacture or import it should pay a tax. The money should then be used to create a compensation fund for innocent victims of gun violence.

This proposal is based on a fundamentally conservative principle — that those who cause injury should be made to “internalize” the cost of their activity by paying for it. Now, gun manufacturers and sellers are mostly protected from lawsuits by federal law.

As it happens, a model for this approach already exists. Under the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, those injured by vaccines are eligible for compensation from a fund financed by an excise tax on the sale of every dose of vaccine. In creating this no-fault system in the 1980s, Congress sought to provide care for those injured by vaccines while protecting manufacturers from undue litigation.

That same concept is being applied in Obamacare with a tax on tanning salons that cause cancer.

So why not tax the group that have caused $850 billion a year in health care costs?

Using the same formula that a direct tax on their revenue should be used to help the 4 million people without health insurance that want and need it!

Tax the lawyers 10% as you suggest the gun makers and as Obamacare is doing now with tanning salons.

$200 billion a year in lawyers' gross revenue at 10% tax would pay a $5,000 a year premium for each and every one of the 4 million that want and need health insurance.

Then as the $850 billion a year in duplicate tests, referrals to specials decline so too would the tax % on lawyers decline.
...URL]

I have to cut you off here, because you are going into crazy talk now.

Frankly, I WANT my doctor taking precautions to make sure he isn't cutting on the wrong leg.

I'm not sure why you don't. (And that's assuming its your leg and not mine he's cutting on.)

 

[DiamondDave]

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/24/opinion/make-gun-companies-pay-blood-money.html?_r=0

The reason for the vaccine fund is that no manufacturer was going to make vaccines anymore without some protection from lawsuits that were based on know adverse reactions caused by introducing live/attenuated/dead versions of pathonegenic materials.

If the vaccines were found to be made incorrectly, or the effect was from some manufacturing error, the fund doesnt cover that. The fund covers the vaccine working as intended, but because the state mandates vaccination via school requirements, it covers any losses.

The object of your proposal, is to again make guns too expensive for people to own. The purpose of the vaccine fund was never to end vaccines, but to keep them under manufacture.

Well it isn't my proposal. I wouldn't be that generous.

I would outright ban firearms, and only allow NON-Lethal weapons for home protection, which will get the job done and not kill household members.

But the problem with the gun manufacturers is that they are reckless in their marketting.

Most of us would say Nancy Lanza buying 12 guns because she expects the collapse of civilziation to be nuts.

The gun manufacturers see her as a prime market, and that's the problem.

I think we have the dumb post of the month

Ban firearms.. a constitutionally protected right?? LMFAO

Yeah.. NOBODY whould know how to keep making them underground

And I suppose you will keep the firearms in the hands of the government?? LMAO

And those criminals are going to start obeying the laws!!!! LMAO

And those criminals would never dare using them against your 'non-lethal' weapons for home protection!! LMAO

And when a stun gun kills someone because of their bad ticker.. guess that lethal weapon will get banned by King Idiot too!!!.. LMAO








Go fuck yourself

 

[Warrior102]

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/24/opinion/make-gun-companies-pay-blood-money.html?_r=0

But there is a simple and direct way to make them accountable for the harm their products cause. For every gun sold, those who manufacture or import it should pay a tax. The money should then be used to create a compensation fund for innocent victims of gun violence.

This proposal is based on a fundamentally conservative principle — that those who cause injury should be made to “internalize” the cost of their activity by paying for it. Now, gun manufacturers and sellers are mostly protected from lawsuits by federal law.

As it happens, a model for this approach already exists. Under the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, those injured by vaccines are eligible for compensation from a fund financed by an excise tax on the sale of every dose of vaccine. In creating this no-fault system in the 1980s, Congress sought to provide care for those injured by vaccines while protecting manufacturers from undue litigation.

Taking it up the ass causes AIDS.
You should consider that next time you're taking it up the ass.
Thanks.

 

[martybegan]

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/24/opinion/make-gun-companies-pay-blood-money.html?_r=0

The reason for the vaccine fund is that no manufacturer was going to make vaccines anymore without some protection from lawsuits that were based on know adverse reactions caused by introducing live/attenuated/dead versions of pathonegenic materials.

If the vaccines were found to be made incorrectly, or the effect was from some manufacturing error, the fund doesnt cover that. The fund covers the vaccine working as intended, but because the state mandates vaccination via school requirements, it covers any losses.

The object of your proposal, is to again make guns too expensive for people to own. The purpose of the vaccine fund was never to end vaccines, but to keep them under manufacture.

Well it isn't my proposal. I wouldn't be that generous.

I would outright ban firearms, and only allow NON-Lethal weapons for home protection, which will get the job done and not kill household members.

But the problem with the gun manufacturers is that they are reckless in their marketting.

Most of us would say Nancy Lanza buying 12 guns because she expects the collapse of civilziation to be nuts.

The gun manufacturers see her as a prime market, and that's the problem.

With that statement anything you say about gun control = gun banning, and thus makes you someone to ignore when it comes to gun policy in general.

And once again all you are doing is giving the advantage to the person robbing the house at the cost of those defending it. Criminals dont follow laws.

 

[mudwhistle]

They make bows and arrows out of wood.

Anyone who's planted a tree should pay blood money.

 

[earlycuyler]

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/24/opinion/make-gun-companies-pay-blood-money.html?_r=0

The reason for the vaccine fund is that no manufacturer was going to make vaccines anymore without some protection from lawsuits that were based on know adverse reactions caused by introducing live/attenuated/dead versions of pathonegenic materials.

If the vaccines were found to be made incorrectly, or the effect was from some manufacturing error, the fund doesnt cover that. The fund covers the vaccine working as intended, but because the state mandates vaccination via school requirements, it covers any losses.

The object of your proposal, is to again make guns too expensive for people to own. The purpose of the vaccine fund was never to end vaccines, but to keep them under manufacture.

Well it isn't my proposal. I wouldn't be that generous.

I would outright ban firearms, and only allow NON-Lethal weapons for home protection, which will get the job done and not kill household members.

But the problem with the gun manufacturers is that they are reckless in their marketting.

Most of us would say Nancy Lanza buying 12 guns because she expects the collapse of civilziation to be nuts.

The gun manufacturers see her as a prime market, and that's the problem.

Must have been a rough day eh Joe ? Can you produce some of this reckless marketing from the gun companies ? Perhaps some that encourages a mass shooting ? You still forget to, that retards who drive and text are out killing bad guys with guns every year. Wreckless marketing by the cell phone companies and those in the auto industry are killing innocent people. They need to pay.

 

[earlycuyler]

They make bows and arrows out of wood.

Anyone who's planted a tree should pay blood money.

Not mine. Its 100% carbon fiber.

 

[healthmyths]

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/24/opinion/make-gun-companies-pay-blood-money.html?_r=0

That same concept is being applied in Obamacare with a tax on tanning salons that cause cancer.

So why not tax the group that have caused $850 billion a year in health care costs?

Using the same formula that a direct tax on their revenue should be used to help the 4 million people without health insurance that want and need it!

Tax the lawyers 10% as you suggest the gun makers and as Obamacare is doing now with tanning salons.

$200 billion a year in lawyers' gross revenue at 10% tax would pay a $5,000 a year premium for each and every one of the 4 million that want and need health insurance.

Then as the $850 billion a year in duplicate tests, referrals to specials decline so too would the tax % on lawyers decline.
...URL]

I have to cut you off here, because you are going into crazy talk now.

Frankly, I WANT my doctor taking precautions to make sure he isn't cutting on the wrong leg.

I'm not sure why you don't. (And that's assuming its your leg and not mine he's cutting on.)

What you are doing is classic hysterical, hyperbolic narcissism... everything is about YOU.

And you know what ... YOU have the right to do that! NO one disputes you the right to INSTRUCT the physician to duplicate tests, etc. to meet your paranoia.

But YOU pay for it! NOT me! Not being as smart as you and definitely not as experienced or knowledgeable as my physician I do my research BEFORE I choose a doctor
that wouldn't know the difference between the right and wrong leg!

Yet it is the Crazy people like you that WANT the doctor to make mistakes SO YOU CAN sue them! I imagine your health insurance company loves you cause all the
insurance companies have to do is raise premiums to cover lazy ignorant people like you that can't even find a doctor who knows the difference!
Pathetic and you call me "crazy talk"???

 

[Old Rocks]

Guns don't kill people, stupid.

People kill people.

Next...

People kill people with guns. And in the US, the number is over 32,000 a year. And the number of gun deaths will soon exceed the number of auto deaths. But that is just fine with the fruitloops here.