Gun Control By Way Of Health Reform

[GrizzlyGuy]

NRA-ILA notes Washington Times editorial:

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

[FastFinger]

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]

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]

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.

[Gray Peterson]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.