PDA

View Full Version : Gun Control By Way Of Health Reform


ukdkbr
10-22-2009, 8:44 PM
http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article.aspx?id=509943
Gun Rights: A decade after Congress forbade the CDC from studying the health consequences of gun ownership, the National Institutes of Health has started funding such research. Will reform pry the guns from our cold, sick hands?

More than a decade ago Congress, seeing it as a backdoor assault on the 2nd Amendment and the right to keep and bear arms, voted to cut funding for firearms research by the Centers for Disease Control. Such research was viewed as one-sided and based on flawed assumptions that all gun use was bad, even that which saved lives and deterred crime.

The National Institutes of Health seemed to have picked up the baton by funding similar studies of gun violence as a public health issue.

"It's almost as if someone's been looking for a way to get this study done ever since the Centers for Disease Control was banned from doing it 10 years ago," said Rep. Joe Barton, R-Texas, of one of the NIH studies. "But it doesn't make any more sense now than it did then."

In response to inquiries about the studies, NIH spokesman Don Ralbovsky said: "Gun-related violence is a public health problem — it diverts considerable health care resources away from other problems and, therefore, is of interest to NIH."

Considering the drive for health care reform and the views on private gun ownership held by this administration and appointees such as Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor, this renewed linkage between gun control and public health is of interest to defenders of the 2nd Amendment as well.

After the 1996 shooting of 16 kids in Dunblane, Scotland, the United Kingdom passed one of the strictest gun-control laws in the world, banning its citizens from owning almost all types of handguns. But that didn't cut down on violent crime, which nearly doubled from 1998-99 to 2002-03.

Australia also saw violent crime pick up after it banned private possession of most firearms in 1996. Increases in violent crime averaged 32% a year in the six years following the ban. Armed robbery rates showed increases of 74%.

Nothing increases gun violence like the sure knowledge your potential victim is unarmed. Such studies ignore the lives saved and the rapes and assaults prevented by guns in the home or by citizens in "right to carry" states.

In many instances, merely brandishing a firearm sends the assailant fleeing with no one injured. None of this is counted on the plus side of the public health ledger.

bohoki
10-22-2009, 9:42 PM
my question is how do you prove you don't have a gun

a1c
10-22-2009, 9:56 PM
That opinion piece seems to try really, really hard to link the healthcare reform debate to 2A rights, and it's failing miserably.

Remember, this is the same media outlet that published that piece a few months ago claiming that Stephen Hawking would have died a long time ago if he had been enduring the UK healthcare system... apparently ignoring he had been a NHS patient for decades, since he has been living in the UK his whole life. Embarrassing.

Quser.619
10-22-2009, 10:12 PM
That opinion piece seems to try really, really hard to link the healthcare reform debate to 2A rights, and it's failing miserably.

Remember, this is the same media outlet that published that piece a few months ago claiming that Stephen Hawking would have died a long time ago if he had been enduring the UK healthcare system... apparently ignoring he had been a NHS patient for decades, since he has been living in the UK his whole life. Embarrassing.


Except for most of the medicine & technology Sir Hawking's life depends upon is American made, designed, manufactured & donoted... Great point!!!

a1c
10-22-2009, 10:32 PM
Except for most of the medicine & technology Sir Hawking's life depends upon is American made, designed, manufactured & donoted... Great point!!!

We're talking healthcare here, not technology.

I hate it when someone ties the 2A with some other issue that has nothing to do with it. We need to focus on defending our RKBA and be an advocate for it. Tying it to current political issues that have nothing to do with it is just going to alienate more people from our cause. That opinion piece is just a hack job and ridiculously divisive. It is using the 2A as a hot button to rally some people against another issue that's completely unrelated.

Dwight K. Schrute
10-23-2009, 12:12 AM
Different site and author, but the direction is the same.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/oct/19/nih-funds-study-of-teen-firearms/

"Gun related violence is a public health problem - it diverts considerable health care resources away from other problems and, therefore, is of interest to NIH," Don Ralbovsky, NIH spokesman, wrote in an e-mail responding to questions about the grants.

Clearly, these people are seeing a possible opening and are going for it.

Why attack the 2nd Amendment directly when you can flank it?

yellowfin
10-23-2009, 12:30 AM
It's not reform, it's sabotage.

Gray Peterson
10-23-2009, 1:20 AM
That opinion piece seems to try really, really hard to link the healthcare reform debate to 2A rights, and it's failing miserably.

Remember, this is the same media outlet that published that piece a few months ago claiming that Stephen Hawking would have died a long time ago if he had been enduring the UK healthcare system... apparently ignoring he had been a NHS patient for decades, since he has been living in the UK his whole life. Embarrassing.

I have to concur here. If the NRA isn't sounding an alarm over the health care bill. Spouting a talking point, and trying to tie in guns to HR3200, resolved issue.

press1280
10-23-2009, 2:17 AM
It's the slippery slope argument. Right now, this thing is just a study, however, if universal health care is enacted, the government has a direct hand in trying to control costs. Then the people who drink and smoke will be punished through a tax, as well as gun owners, who will also be taxed as it'll be considered a health risk.

Keep in mind these guys will not try to take the 2A head on, it'll be some kind of backdoor action that makes it too expensive or a major PITA to own a gun.

Gray Peterson
10-23-2009, 2:43 AM
It's the slippery slope argument. Right now, this thing is just a study, however, if universal health care is enacted, the government has a direct hand in trying to control costs. Then the people who drink and smoke will be punished through a tax, as well as gun owners, who will also be taxed as it'll be considered a health risk.

Keep in mind these guys will not try to take the 2A head on, it'll be some kind of backdoor action that makes it too expensive or a major PITA to own a gun.

Backdoor, frontdoor, it doesn't matter. Any attempt to do what you're talking about will have the feds hauled into a federal court to explain why they are attempting to backdoor tax a fundamental right. I would be more worried pre-Heller, but post-Heller, not gonna happen.

If the NRA isn't sounding an alarm over the health care bill, then there isn't really an issue to be concerned about. The tax issues are laid out bare. NONE of the health care bills allow for taxes on the basis of what you're talking about. Resorting to believing flat out lies doesn't help our cause.

As Mike stated, NRA is a *single-issue* organization. Do you not think that NRA's lobbyists hasn't very closely watched every amendment and everything that could in any way effect gun owners?

Pred@tor
10-23-2009, 2:58 AM
More government in our lives is not a good thing. Its just only gonna get worse and freedoms less. This health care socialist "reforms" are a danger to our ways of life. Also theres a treaty in the works that endangers our Constitution and national Sovereignty.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0GPHZn1XuqQ

http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/10/un-fccc-copenhagen-2009.pdf actual treaty...

mikehaas
10-23-2009, 7:28 AM
I have to concur here. If the NRA isn't sounding an alarm over the health care bill. Spouting a talking point, and trying to tie in guns to HR3200, resolved issue.

Cn't say it emphatically enough...

NRA is a *SINGLE-ISSUE organization and needs to stay OUT of the health-care debate. (not to mention abortion, drugs and any other social issue you can think of.)

Believe it or not, NOT EVERYONE AGREES WITH YOU. There are NRA members that support health care reform. There are NRA members that support abortion and drug legalization and multilingualism. NRA members fall on every side of every issue.

You would destroy the unity of the Second Amendment movement, having NRA waste it's clout and power on unrelated stuff.

Don't depend on NRA to fix the GOP. The "R" in NRA doesn't stand for "Republican". (If it did, NRA would likely turn into a bunch of sellouts too. Let's keep NRA focused on what it does best.)

captn-tin
10-23-2009, 8:24 AM
Let me see if I have this right. Own a gun and, unless you give it up, you can be priced out of your health insurance. Could you carry that type of thinking to ink? If you own a computer or typewriter you need ink with wich to write a post, column,etc that could be construed as hate speech, wich could lead to violence that could fill up emergency rooms. Therefore own ink, cancel health insurance. How about words ? Say something that may be taken as hatefull, or say something against the present administration. Cut out your tongue or be canceled. And on & on & on.

Bruce
10-23-2009, 9:33 AM
http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?p=2861408#post2861408

Post #74
:rolleyes:

dantodd
10-23-2009, 10:15 AM
NRA is a *SINGLE-ISSUE organization and needs to stay OUT of the health-care debate. (not to mention abortion, drugs and any other social issue you can think of.)


He was agreeing with you. Why do you yell at people so often?

GrizzlyGuy
10-23-2009, 10:30 AM
NRA-ILA notes Washington Times editorial:

http://www.nraila.org/News/Read/InTheNews.aspx?ID=13038

FastFinger
10-23-2009, 10:49 AM
An awful lot of folks whistling by graveyards...

I'm not concerned about whether or not the NRA sees this as an issue. They have their beliefs and agenda, and I have mine.

To say that linking gun ownership and health coverage is a stretch may be technically correct, but that's from a rational point of view. It's ignoring that fact that time after time power hungry bureaucrats, politicians, and judges have set aside all rational thought in order to increase their control and impose their will.

Just look at most firearm laws in our state... they take away a citizen's liberty or property merely because it "looks evil"? Again - to take an otherwise productive member of society - tear him from his family - cause him to lose his job - place him in prison - force others to support him - just because his rifle looks different than another identical functioning firearm? That's beyond all reason, yet it's the law of the land

So to state that no government would use some flawed connection between firearm ownership and health risk in order to force people to give up gun ownership sounds pretty naive to me.

Remember - these are the same people who made up some constitutional right to privacy and then made up a justification to use that to allow abortions. Whether you believe in the right to abortion isn't the point - the point is that they will concoct and twist logic and reason to suit their own agenda.

If they didn't believe they could find - or create - some cause & effect relationships and exploit them why would they even bother with this line of research?

dfletcher
10-23-2009, 11:20 AM
When I recall the modest reach with which some government programs began and the limited scope (or cost) of government involvement in our lives, I have a concern that the combination of government health care and the desire for gun control will at some point in the future meet. When relief packages were handed out many years ago did anyone think food stamps and EBT cards would be the result? When Surgeon General Terry announced in 1964 that smoking causes cancer did anyone think bans on smoking in public would result?

We're making an assumption though - that in providing health care the government prefers to keep us healthy and live a long life. From an economic point of view, folks who take risks - skydiving, drive fast, drink & drive or climb mountains or any number of interesting activities - well, they die. Often pretty young and quickly.

I'll bet if an actuarial did a study of folks who engage in risky behavior and compared them to folks who did not they'd find that those who took risk cost less than those who did not - because they don't get old & use $500,000.00 of health care for the last few years of their life.

Pay onto the system, then one day your parachute doesn't open or you trip & fall on to your gun or you have one too many beers and drive home. Gonzo. No government health care expenses on you. Not a whole lot different than being a black male - work, pay into Social Security - then drop dead about age 68 before you get a whole lot back.

Gray Peterson
10-23-2009, 1:55 PM
Health Insurance Companies did it to themselves. I am certainly not shedding a tear when they pull this kind of ****:

Billy Koehler had heart arrhythmia (an irregular heartbeat). He had an internal heart defibrillator installed to keep his heart beating properly. Billy lost his health insurance in 2003 when he lost his job at an electronics company. In late 2007, he collapsed while working at a pizza shop and was rushed to the hospital. The doctor at the hospital told him he had possible blockage and that the battery in his defibrillator needed to be replaced. The battery would have cost $10,000. The doctor told him to come back in 3 months “if you have the money.” Billy was discharged without care, couldn’t get Medicaid or other financial assistance, and died a year later.

Billy was a pizza delivery driver and had to spend the small paychecks he had on putting a roof over his head. Now he's dead.

There's a very long train of abuses that the insurance companies have been pulling on people who have faithfully paid their premiums every year, and then they get denied treatment, have to pay out of their own pocket if their child gets luekemia and needs treatment, and ends up bankrupt, having to rely on a government court to divide up assets.

Insurance companies have denied people either coverage or covering a treatment due to acne, being sexually assaulted, being beaten by their spouse, and the list goes on.

How would you feel if you paid tens of thousands of dollars in premiums to an insurance company over your lifetime, and then when you need it to treat your child's cancer, they deny you out of matter of course? You'd call it murder because they broke their word and you have no recourse because the courts take too long and the cancer will progress to terminal in the meantime.

I guess there are some people that believe that social darwinism is OK. I'm not one of those people. I'm also not one of those morons who talk about "free health care" because nothing in life is free. Neither are police stations, fire stations, and highways.

Gray Peterson
10-23-2009, 2:05 PM
When I recall the modest reach with which some government programs began and the limited scope (or cost) of government involvement in our lives, I have a concern that the combination of government health care and the desire for gun control will at some point in the future meet. When relief packages were handed out many years ago did anyone think food stamps and EBT cards would be the result?

What does that have to do with RKBA?

When Surgeon General Terry announced in 1964 that smoking causes cancer did anyone think bans on smoking in public would result?

Last I checked, smoking in public was NOT an enumerated civil right. RKBA is.

My answer to you about government health care denying insurance to "gun owners" or "drinkers" is the following:

Has Medicare, TriCare, or VA insurance ever denied a person care under the conditions that you're talking about? I'm willing to bet you cannot find even an anecdotal answer other than no.

The fact is that at this current time, private insurers can pull the same kind of crap in terms of denying coverage to gun owners. The same thing is starting to occur with renters and house insurance, where some companies are asking the question about gun ownership and then denying you coverage or significantly raising your premium. If they all collude to do the same thing, and it encompasses every insurer in the state, you are SCREWED because you cannot get any insurance at all from anyone, at any price for you and your family. Eventually the health insurers will catch on to this.

"Don't get sick, and if you get sick, die quickly" will be correct for gun owners and other disfavored populations. I can organize and vote out politicians who would support a government medical plan which would pull that kind of crap, I can't do the same thing to Wellpoint or Blue Cross.

Dwight K. Schrute
10-23-2009, 2:49 PM
I can organize and vote out politicians who would support a government medical plan which would pull that kind of crap, I can't do the same thing to Wellpoint or Blue Cross.

Can't you vote with your wallet? If your upset with them, take your business elsewhere?

FastFinger
10-23-2009, 2:55 PM
Yes -private insurance companies could probably impose restrictions or premium increases based on firearm ownership. However as it stands there a wide choice of insurance providers, and in a competitive field there will be a underwriter or two who would not take those steps just to nab that market.

But the more gov regulates private insurers, the more they will have the opportunity to force them to implement such measures - even more so if they are the underwriter and issue the payments.

"Has Medicare, TriCare, or VA insurance ever denied a person care under the conditions that you're talking about? "

No - not yet anyway. But then again up until a few weeks ago we could go to sleep knowing that the following day we'd be able to place an order for a case of ammo from Cheaper Than Dirt and have it delivered to our doorstep. Things change.

I'm not saying we should take up picket signs and organize a protest march against these studies - but at the same time I think it's downright foolish to ignore this threat and not connect it to the ongoing government health care debate.

dfletcher
10-23-2009, 2:56 PM
What does that have to do with RKBA?



Last I checked, smoking in public was NOT an enumerated civil right. RKBA is.

My answer to you about government health care denying insurance to "gun owners" or "drinkers" is the following:

Has Medicare, TriCare, or VA insurance ever denied a person care under the conditions that you're talking about? I'm willing to bet you cannot find even an anecdotal answer other than no.

The fact is that at this current time, private insurers can pull the same kind of crap in terms of denying coverage to gun owners. The same thing is starting to occur with renters and house insurance, where some companies are asking the question about gun ownership and then denying you coverage or significantly raising your premium. If they all collude to do the same thing, and it encompasses every insurer in the state, you are SCREWED because you cannot get any insurance at all from anyone, at any price for you and your family. Eventually the health insurers will catch on to this.

"Don't get sick, and if you get sick, die quickly" will be correct for gun owners and other disfavored populations. I can organize and vote out politicians who would support a government medical plan which would pull that kind of crap, I can't do the same thing to Wellpoint or Blue Cross.

Good point with respect to voting out people as a recourse not found with the private sector. Voting out people who don't do as we prefer hasn't worked out very well for us in California, but I agree it is an option.

I've no idea whether Medicare and the others denied coverage, I never asserted they did or would. Perhaps I'll have to pay a premium to own guns or hunt and avail myself of public health care or in the alternative be offered a tax break if I get rid of my guns or store them some place - then I'd have the lovely experience of listening to the wife say "why do you have those things - we can get a $7,500.00 tax break if we sell them" ....

I don't think the government is some well oiled, evil entity that in a secretly coordinated effort will conspire to steal my independence and guns. But I think people and institutions have tendencies, for lack of a better term, and it seems with the government the tendency is "more". More help or more meddling or more control depending on your point of view, but always more.

FastFinger
10-23-2009, 3:11 PM
Health Insurance Companies did it to themselves. I am certainly not shedding a tear when they pull this kind of ****:



Billy was a pizza delivery driver and had to spend the small paychecks he had on putting a roof over his head. Now he's dead.

There's a very long train of abuses that the insurance companies have been pulling on people who have faithfully paid their premiums every year, and then they get denied treatment, have to pay out of their own pocket if their child gets luekemia and needs treatment, and ends up bankrupt, having to rely on a government court to divide up assets.

Insurance companies have denied people either coverage or covering a treatment due to acne, being sexually assaulted, being beaten by their spouse, and the list goes on.

How would you feel if you paid tens of thousands of dollars in premiums to an insurance company over your lifetime, and then when you need it to treat your child's cancer, they deny you out of matter of course? You'd call it murder because they broke their word and you have no recourse because the courts take too long and the cancer will progress to terminal in the meantime.

I guess there are some people that believe that social darwinism is OK. I'm not one of those people. I'm also not one of those morons who talk about "free health care" because nothing in life is free. Neither are police stations, fire stations, and highways.


Not sure we want this to tangent off into a debate on insurance and the health care proposals... But RKBA implications aside there's no doubt that there are problems with our current system - but there are also many proposed changes (including more ins. company regulations) that we should consider before we opt to turn over the whole system to a bunch of bureaucrats.

Given that those alternate proposal receive zero coverage in the press it's not surprising that they're not receiving serious consideration.