Health Care Reform = Gun Control! Write your legislators!

[drjoker]

I just came across this random page on the internet and was really alarmed. I invite you to write your legislators! Now!

By Jennifer Freeman:

While the Democrats are holding closed-door negotiations on merging the two Senate health care bills, the National Institute of Health has quietly begun studying the health effects of gun ownership. These two, seemingly separate activities are, in fact, closely related.

The NIH has a pre-existing position that owning a gun is a public health risk. They intend to "prove" this theory by investigating "whether adolescents who consume alcohol and/or carry firearms, and/or whose daily activities occur in surroundings rich in alcohol and/or firearms, face a differential risk of being shot with a firearm or injured in a non-gun assault." In other words, the NIH is going to study the behavior of gang members and use that information to support their position that firearm ownership is a public health risk.

Private studies, as well as casual observation, tells us that cities with a higher level of gun ownership consistently have lower levels of crime than comparably-sized cities with strict gun control laws. We know that firearms prevent crime an estimated 2.5 million times per year often resulting in no bloodshed whatsoever. Based on these facts, one could argue that firearm ownership is a health benefit in that it saves lives. The NIH has no interest in this angle, however.

The NIH, with public support from the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, will likely pursue the activities of gang members and apply their findings to gun owners across the board. Once this begins, people applying for health insurance may be required to disclose whether or not they own firearms. (It is also possible, that by sharing data between agencies, the government will already know whether or not you own a firearm). Firearm owners could be forced to pay significantly higher insurance rates.

Of course, firearm ownership is only one aspect of how nationalized health care provides the government with a welcome invitation to control almost every aspect of your life. What you eat, how much you exercise, whether you smoke or drink is only the beginning. Health insurance will likely be mandatory by law and your adherence to government "health" standards will be mandatory in order to afford and/or receive benefits.

The 2000 elections taught Democrats the painful lesson that Americans overwhelmingly support gun ownership as guaranteed in the Bill of Rights. Rather than accept the will of the American people, the Democrats have resorted to sneaky, anti-gun bigotry. From registering ammunition to denying that the Second Amendment applies outside of Washington DC, the Democrats are doing everything they can to make it too expensive or too much of a hassle to own a gun while simultaneously claiming that they "don't want to take your guns away." Nationalized health care will likely be another example of such bigotry.

http://www.libertybelles.org/articles/insuranceguns.htm

[A-R]

Let me turn this fear-based argument on it's head:

If this theoretical national public-only health insurance did exist, and did attempt to exclude or charge more to gun owner, that would seem an easy to prove violation of the second amendment. However, a private insurer could do this RIGHT NOW and not violate 2A because it is a private business making the rules and not the Federal government.

[MrsFosforos]

By Jennifer Freeman:

The NIH has a pre-existing position that owning a gun is a public health risk. They intend to "prove" this theory by investigating "whether adolescents who consume alcohol and/or carry firearms, and/or whose daily activities occur in surroundings rich in alcohol and/or firearms, face a differential risk of being shot with a firearm or injured in a non-gun assault." In other words, the NIH is going to study the behavior of gang members and use that information to support their position that firearm ownership is a public health risk.
http://www.libertybelles.org/articles/insuranceguns.htm

If only they would clarify that it is the ILLEGAL OWNERSHIP AND USE OF GUNS that presents health (& safety) hazards.

[drjoker]

BTW, I am extending my offer to give you a chance to win a free USA custom handmade monogrammed heirloom leather hip holster. To be eligible, just write your legislators (congress and senate). Writing these two letters will give you one chance to win this fantastic holster. Go to this thread on the forum to see the details of this contest: http://www.texasshooting.com/TexasCHL_F ... 15&start=0 . If you are participating in the mall letter writing contest already, then writing your legislators would give you an additional chance to win. I invite you to write letters to your congressman and senator. Then, post your letters here. I will randomly pick a winner a week from now. One lucky person will win a fabulous handmade genuine Texas holster.

P.S. If any of you guys want to help, I invite you to post here an offer to randomly pick a person who writes their legislators and give this person a prize, such as a gun (by legal means such as FFL to FFL) or some gun product or perhaps you could give away an NRA membership (it comes with a neat gun magazine subscription).

P.S. My letter will say:
To the Honorable Mr/Ms Congressman/Senator, Please make sure that there is no language in the health care reform bill that will infringe my 2nd amendment right to bear arms. For example, making insurance premiums more expensive for gun owners would infringe my rights. Also, making it illegal for people with common ailments such as depression to own guns would be an infringement on my 2nd amendment rights. It would be better to not pass the health care reform bill, but if it must pass, try to keep it as small as possible so that we would not be emburdened with inflation nor crushing taxes in the future. Indigent people are already covered by Medicare/Medicaid/Social Security. Please do not raise my taxes nor raise the inflation rate. Thank you, (my name).



P.S. your letter will not have to say anything about taxes nor inflation. Just mention our 2nd amendment rights and tell 'em not to infringe them in the health care reform bill and I'll enter you one chance in the contest to win an heirloom holster.

[No Bama Man]

I think that the best solution would be to simply to pass legislation that makes it illegal to not give part-time employees at least some partial health insurance. This will stop the unscrupulous practice of employing people just an hour shy of full time to avoid paying full time benefits to employees.

This is the fundemental flaw in the thinking that is costing all of us our individual rights and I'm just a guilty as anyone. For instance I dont smoke so i had no problems with legislation against smokers. Problem with this thinking is where does it stop? You have a problem with "unscrupulous" employers conducting their business in such a way as to maximise their profits and therfore you would be ok with legislation banning their lawful and rightful choices. If you dont like their benifit package or lack thereof dont work there. If its the best you can get then its the best you can get. Sometime life isnt fair and we dont need a government which infringes on our individual rights trying to keep it "fair".

We all need to stand up against legislation which regulates law abiding citizens from doing things which have no direct impact on anyone other than themselves and their own familys even if we dont particulary agree with or like whatever actions it is they are trying to legislate against. All legislation is antithetical to freedom.

Everyone should really think about this. Just because YOU/I dont like it does not give YOU/I the right to not allow someone else the right to do it if it has no direct impact on anyone besides themselves and their family. The only answer to all of this is for government to stay out of our lives and let us have our individual liberty and freedom and the right to persue happiness. JMO.

[Kythas]

I think that the best solution would be to simply to pass legislation that makes it illegal to not give part-time employees at least some partial health insurance. This will stop the unscrupulous practice of employing people just an hour shy of full time to avoid paying full time benefits to employees.

This is the fundemental flaw in the thinking that is costing all of us our individual rights and I'm just a guilty as anyone. For instance I dont smoke so i had no problems with legislation against smokers. Problem with this thinking is where does it stop? You have a problem with "unscrupulous" employers conducting their business in such a way as to maximise their profits and therfore you would be ok with legislation banning their lawful and rightful choices. If you dont like their benifit package or lack thereof dont work there. If its the best you can get then its the best you can get. Sometime life isnt fair and we dont need a government which infringes on our individual rights trying to keep it "fair".

We all need to stand up against legislation which regulates law abiding citizens from doing things which have no direct impact on anyone other than themselves and their own familys even if we dont particulary agree with or like whatever actions it is they are trying to legislate against. All legislation is antithetical to freedom.

Everyone should really think about this. Just because YOU/I dont like it does not give YOU/I the right to not allow someone else the right to do it if it has no direct impact on anyone besides themselves and their family. The only answer to all of this is for government to stay out of our lives and let us have our individual liberty and freedom and the right to persue happiness. JMO.

I agree completely. I don't smoke and can't stand the smell of smoke, but was against the city of Dallas banning smoking in restaurants. Government has no business telling a private business owner what he can or can not allow in his place of business - especially when that activity is legal. If a restaurant owner wants to allow smoking in his restaurant, government should not be able to prohibit him. I would then choose not to dine there, but that would be my choice as a free man.

With national health insurance, everyone's health practice now becomes a matter of public policy, as all taxpayers will now have a vested interest in the healthy lifestyle choices of everyone else. Government could then, theoretically, dictate to everyone how much exercise you must do in a week, what kinds of foods you are allowed to eat, and whether or not you will be allowed to smoke, drink, skydive, scuba dive, ride motorcycles, etc. After all, it would now be a matter of public interest, and if any one person's choice of lifestyle activities brings an unreasonable cost on the health care system, wouldn't the people who must bear that cost have a say in whether those choices are permissible?

[mgood]

Regardless of who originally said what, this thread brings to mind these quotes (I dug this up on wiki.monticello.org but I know variations thereof have been posted here before:

The following statement, or variations thereof, is often attributed to Thomas Jefferson:

"A government big enough to supply you with everything you need, is a government big enough to take away everything that you have...."

We have never found such a statement in Jefferson's writings. As far as we know, this statement actually originates with Gerald R. Ford, who said, "A government big enough to give you everything you want is a government big enough to take from you everything you have," in an address to a joint session of Congress on August 12, 1974.[1]

This quotation is sometimes followed by, "The course of history shows that as a government grows, liberty decreases," which is most likely a misquotation of Jefferson's comment, "The natural progress of things is for liberty to yeild, and government to gain ground."

[C-dub]

Wouldn't this also create a list of who does and does not own a gun? It doesn't pass the smell test.

[drjoker]

No Bama Man, you are right, I didn't think about it like that.... Health care reform is so complicated!
Due to what you've pointed out, I've deleted these lines from my letter, " I think that the best solution would be to simply to pass legislation that makes it illegal to not give part-time employees at least some partial health insurance. This will stop the unscrupulous practice of employing people just an hour shy of full time to avoid paying full time benefits to employees."

C-dub, yes, if the health care reform bill is worded wrong, it may create a list of who does and doesn't own a gun. It is firearms registration through a back door. We need to tell our legislators that we're watching what's going on by WRITING THOSE LETTERS!

Please write your letters!

[C-dub]

Well, my intended point was that if this is true and it happens this is just one more reason why the whole thing will be challenged as unconstitutional. I just wonder how many people, companies, or states will challenge it.

[bdickens]

I've had one of those full-time part-time jobs before when I was a kid. I sure wouldn't put up with that now.

[drjoker]

OK, due to non-response, I'll step it up a notch. The first person who posts a copy of their letters here will get a holster. Subsequent posters will get a dice roll and if the dice hits snake eyes (2 ones) then I'll mail you a holster. I will give away a minimum of 1 holster and a maximum of 2 holsters.

C'mon, y'all! Political apathy is what got us 0bama, socialism, arms control, and moral decline. I invite you to get writing, Now! (thanks)



P.S. If any of you guys want to help, I invite you to post here an offer to randomly pick a person who writes their legislators and give this person a prize, such as a gun (by legal means such as FFL to FFL) or some gun product or perhaps you could give away an NRA membership (it comes with a neat gun magazine subscription).

[Matrix68]

I borrowed some of your content and wrote both Texas US Senators...here is the response I received from one of them. It's pretty much a "form letter" canned response, as it does not address my concern around including 2nd Amendment infringes/impact within the Health Reform Bill language.

Content of the email that I sent them (cannot provide actual copy of the email, as I used their websites, which uses "forms"):

To the Honorable US Senator Mr. John Cornyn/Mrs. Kay Bailey Hutchinson,
Please make sure that there is no language in the health care reform bill that will infringe my 2nd amendment right to bear arms. For example, making insurance premiums more expensive for gun owners would infringe my rights. Also, making it illegal for people with common ailments such as depression to own guns would be an infringement on my 2nd amendment rights. Try to keep the overall impact of health care reform as small as possible so that we would not be burdened with inflation nor crushing taxes in the future.
Thank You


Senator Mrs. Kay Bailey Hutchinson's response:

Dear Friend:

Thank you for contacting me about health care reform legislation. I welcome your thoughts and comments.

Texans are particularly aware of the dire need for reform. Our state has 6 million uninsured residents, the highest percentage of uninsured in the nation. This number poses a huge challenge for our health care workers, hospitals, taxpayers, and many working individuals and families that cannot afford the health care coverage they need. In fact, Senator Mrs. Kay Bailey Hutchinson's response:

Families USA reported that in 2005, health insurance premiums for Texas families with insurance included an extra $1,551 due to the cost of care for the uninsured. We must take care not to undermine what should be the foundation of health care in America – patient choice, affordable coverage, and the highest quality of care.

At this time, several bills are being considered by Congress that would make dramatic changes to your ability to access medical services and obtain health insurance. I do not serve on either of the Senate committees that have jurisdiction over health care reform legislation. One of the most troublesome aspects of the legislation being considered is the massive government expansion it would enact. I strongly oppose a government-run option and believe current government-managed programs such as Medicare and Medicaid make a case against this proposal. Billions of taxpayer dollars are wasted on fraud and abuse in Medicare every year, and the program will be insolvent by 2017. Furthermore, 40 percent of physicians turn away Medicaid patients because the system is poorly administered, resulting in reduced choices and access to care for beneficiaries. I believe a government-run option will inevitably lead to a single-payer system in which private insurance providers are crowded out of the market and care is rationed to Americans. I would not want my family to be covered by this government plan, and therefore I do not find it acceptable for other American families and individuals.

After hearing from constituents over the last several months, some members of Congress have now learned that using the term “government plan” elicits a strong negative response from voters, so they have now latched onto a new way to describe the same thing: a co-op. Texans should not be confused by this new packaging of the same idea. The co-op is a back door to a government takeover of our health care. The co-op would be started with federal funds, and it remains unclear whether taxpayer dollars would be used if the co-ops began to fail. The Administration has tried to bail out the banking, housing, and auto industry; would these co-ops be next?

Furthermore, I am worried about the effect these health care proposals will have on small businesses and individuals during an economic downturn. Employers may have to pay a tax penalty despite the fact they already offer insurance to their employees, and the most recent proposal from the Senate includes a tax of up to $3,800 a year for those individuals who do not purchase health insurance, something the President opposed when he was campaigning for office.

The large proposed cuts of federal reimbursements to hospitals are also of particular concern. Hospitals are required to provide millions of dollars in uncompensated care to uninsured residents. Our rural hospitals, which serve a low number of patients, operate with little to no profit margin. Reducing these hospitals’ badly needed federal reimbursements could result in reduced services, or even worse, the closure of entire facilities. Additionally, to keep their doors open, hospitals may be forced to pass these cuts to patients with private insurance, resulting in even higher premiums and driving up health care costs further in Texas.

The proposals being put forward will reduce patient choices, drive insurance companies out of business and have minimal impact on the uninsured population. Further, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office has repeatedly stated that both House and Senate bills will not bend the curve on cost growth over the long term.

Reform must provide an opportunity for everyone who wants health insurance to obtain it. The insurance market must be one in which competition is encouraged between insurance providers based on transparency and value, making health insurance a buyer’s market in which patients have affordable choices and know what plans cost and offer. I am a cosponsor of the Health Care Freedom Plan that would provide a $2,000 voucher for individuals and $5,000 voucher for families to purchase health insurance on the private market. Increasing the number of insured will increase competition in the market place and bring down costs. This bill ensures individuals receive the same tax benefits that businesses receive for health insurance coverage, allows individuals to keep their insurance policy, and lets them keep the doctors they trust even if they change jobs. By enacting these reforms, and by simultaneously containing skyrocketing costs through payment reform, prevention initiatives, and the provision of adequate care for those with chronic conditions, we could achieve quality health care reform.

You are among thousands of concerned Texans who have written to express their views on this topic. As the debate on health care reform continues, I encourage you to express your concerns to members of Congress, particularly those who have not publicly taken a stance on the dangerous consequences of the proposals put forth. You may be assured that as health care reform legislation comes for consideration before the full Senate, I will keep your views in mind.

I appreciate hearing from you, and I hope that you will contact me on any issue that is important to you.

Sincerely,
Kay Bailey Hutchison
United States Senator

[drjoker]

Somebody is getting a holster! Keep writing y'all, and I'll roll the dice to see if there are any additional holsters.

BTW, I just noticed that your letter does not include anything about concern for the language in the bill limiting our 2nd amendment rights. Just be sure to add that to the letter and I'll mail you a holster. PM me your address.

Oops, I just noticed that the posted letter is not your letter to the Senator at all. It is the senator's letter to you. Please post a copy of your letter to your legislators regarding concern for the language in the bill infringing on our 2nd amendment rights and I'll probably be sending you a holster (unless someone else beats you to the punch as I'm only giving out 2 holsters. Right now, you'll still get a holster if you post now as you're still first on CHL/THR forums, but don't wait!).

[Matrix68]

drjoker...

I updateed my post, to include the "content" that I sent to each Senator. Unfortunately, if you use the Senators' websites to send them "your thoughts"...they use a online form, which does not allow you to send yourself a copy.

In addition, from my original post...you will notice that I commented on how the Senator did not address my 2nd Amendment concern...and that's why I believe that the response I recieved from Senator Kay Bailey Hutchinson is just a "canned" response that she is sending to all folks that contact her about the Health Reform bill.