By: Sal Palma
I read a rather troubling article published in the Bloomberg View titled “Are Guns a Pre-Existing Condition?” This is an editorial piece written by Francis Wilkinson, a Bloomberg View editorial board member. I suggest you read it.
I’ll begin by describing Wilkinson’s work as no more than an empty hulk, filled with bias and hidden agendas; however, it is a clear indicator of what our gun owners can expect if they fail to remain alert.
In his editorial, Wilkinson attacks two important pieces of Florida legislation: “Stand Your Ground Law,” and legislation enacted by Florida’s Governor Scott that we’ll call the “gun gag law”, which prevents medical practitioners from requiring patients to disclose whether they own a gun. Under the law, a doctor is prohibited from asking a patient if he or she owns a firearm.
At first glance the argument appears to be innocuous, almost academic; however, a more critical analysis points to a very real peril. You see, once a patient discloses ownership of a firearm, the information becomes part of his or her’s medical records. Those medical records are then accessible and subject to review by insurance companies. Their actuaries will use that information to place gun owners in a high risk group; thereby justifying higher insurance premiums. Although under the ACA (Affordable Care Act), the unsuspecting gun owner would not be denied coverage, rest assured insurance providers will use the data to justify higher premiums. The resultant rate increases will force the average gun owner to choose between health insurance, now mandatory, or owning a firearm. This slick and underhanded assault on 2nd Amendment rights is but the tip of the iceberg, and law-abiding gun owners can expect more of these attacks.
The Supreme Court’s decision to uphold the ACA was based on Congresses ability to levy taxes. I will bet you dollars to doughnuts that members of the Washington gun lobby are salivating at the prospect of using the same precept to further tax firearm sales, manufacturers, ammunition and use taxes. Their objective is not to increase revenues; rather, the underlying theme is to circumvent the 2nd Amendment without taking it head on.
Universal healthcare is a right and there is not an industrialized nation on this planet that does not ensure its members have access to competent and timely medical services; however, using healthcare and the doctor patient relationship to undermine the Constitution is both immoral and dishonest.
Whether you agree with my view on universal healthcare, or not, is not the salient issue – your entitled to your opinion. However, the deliberate and orchestrated assault on the 2nd Amendment is despicable.
under this new stuff, is a go to hell or noyb a yes?