There may be hope

With the Senate taking a test vote to kill our medical industry last night I decided to see what the opposition to my non-representing representative had to say about it. When I visited his site on facebook, I noticed that there was a link to an article published in the WestLinn Tiddings dated November 12, 2009. In this article, both Kurt Schrader (D) and Scott Bruun (R) were interviewed. Mr. Schrader espoused his flawed ideology about how socialized medicine would keep costs down and wouldn't allow the health insurance companies deny anyone because of preexisting conditions. The two points are contradictory unless the ultimate goal is to push all private health insurance companies out of business.

Mr. Bruun's view of the House's version of socialized medicine is vastly different and would be a more hands off approach to the issue. Mr. Bruun used some language that is a little disturbing like "bi-partisan" and "tax incentives." Some language was right on such as "reducing the Medicare/Medicaid cost shift onto private insurance" and "allowing for purchase of private insurance across state lines" and "fixing our tort system to reduce costs related to defensive medicine."

I know that Medicare and Medicaid are black holes when it comes to government spending. The federal government has to cut Medicaid completely. First they do not have the authority to run or manage this monstrosity. Medicaid, if it were to remain, falls under the ninth and tenth amendments and therefore fall under the individual States to run if they decide to have this program. Medicare is a completely different situation altogether. Those that are receiving Medicare benefits were promised that this program would be there when they reached a certain age. For those who are receiving those benefits or are about to receive the benefits, they must keep them. The federal government needs to impose a cutoff. Those who were born before the cutoff have to rely on either themselves or their State to pay for their medical costs when they get to retirement age. Those who were born after the cutoff have the option to receive Medicare when they reach the age where they are able to receive them or they may choose to opt out.

As for Scott's comment about buying health insurance across state lines, this is the first politician from the left coast, that I have heard or read, who has uttered those words. For that I must applaud him. I can't say who I will support for Oregon's fifth congressional district. I can say with certainty that it will not be Mr. Schrader, he is too liberal. As for Scott Bruun, only time will tell if I put my hat in the ring for him or someone else that is running for that seat. As of now, I can say that Mr. Bruun's stock with me is rising.

Physician Assistants Gone Wild

Imagine that you're at your doctor's office and the physician assistant comes in and asks if you are a gun owner. Think this won't happen? Think again. In the past, various medical associations have weighed in on the subject of firearm ownership. The latest offender is the physicians assistants in the article titled, "Ready, Fire, Aim" written by Sarah Zarbock. I heard of this article when I was listening to Cam and Company the other night; Cam and Company can be heard M-F 9pm ET to 12am ET on www.nranews.com or on Sirius Patriot 144.

First let me ask the first question that came to my mind, "How is it any of their business whether or not I own a firearm?" This question is pointed at anyone in the medical field, my employer or prospective employer, my religious leaders, the government, or any number of people. For this post, however, I will focus on the medical community and more specifically, physician assistants.

Ms. Zarbock starts off with the usual suspects of emotional arguments why owning a firearm is bad, starting with the child that "plays with a loaded handgun" that was discovered and within its reach. The next ones are just as predictable; the homeowner that loses their handgun in a struggle with an invader and the depressed "gun-owning college student." The last example that is used, is actually a reason to own a firearm, the last example given is a female opening her door only to find her ex on the other side with a rifle even though there's a restraining order barring him from being near her. This shows that a piece of paper can't stop someone from doing harm if they really want to.

Ms. Zarbock claims that she isn't writing an editorial on gun control but is focusing on gun safety. She states, "Where I think most of us can agree is that we have an obligation as health professionals to discuss gun safety with patients."(Emphasis added). How is it that gun safety falls under the purview of a medical professional when they are operating in the role of a medical professional? What type of training do they have that qualifies them to offer unsolicited advice about gun safety? Has a qualified person trained them? Isn't this a type of conversation better left to someone you know and not a stranger?

Putting these questions aside and returning to the article, she turns to statistics. When I start seeing statistics I hear Mark Twain in the back of my mind saying, "There are three kinds of lies in the world; lies, damned lies, and statistics." She quotes a study published in the Journal of Community Health in 1997. The study stated, "that 1 in 7 patients had a gun in their house. About half of the patients with guns reported storing them unlocked, and more than half had not talked to their children about gun safety." Are all of these "patients" legal gun owners? In regards to those who haven't "talked to their children about gun safety," there may be some reasons that they haven't done so. First, if they are part of the criminal element they may not care much about teaching gun safety to their kid. Barring that reason, the children may not be old enough to learn about gun safety. Some people choose to wait to teach gun safety and some don't do it at all. Teaching gun safety to your kids is a good thing to do especially if you own one but that is your choice. The study goes on to say that half of the patients think that the doctors should "counsel about gun safety... [t]wo-thirds of the doctors said that they were not trained in or comfortable with counseling on gun safety." For those who think their medical professional should counsel the on firearm safety, I would ask them if they would ask their plumber how to operate a car safely? Notice that the study claims that the majority of doctors say they aren't trained in counseling patients on firearm safety. Leave the teaching to those who know. If a patient needs advice, point them to the local gun range, NRA or state association, or a gun store.

Ms. Zarbock closes her article with, "Asking patients about gun ownership and safety should be as automatic as asking them whether they smoke or how much alcohol they drink." Comparing tobacco use and alcohol consumption with owning a firearm are as different as night and day. She dose impart her words of wisdom in the following list.

1. Remove guns from your home, or keep them unloaded and locked up, with ammunition stored separately.
2. Treat guns as if they were loaded and ready to fire.
3. Do not allow children access to guns.

Removing firearms from your home is the top of the list? It appears that as a side thought she concedes that there will be some who will refuse to get rid of their guns, so for them, they should keep them locked and unloaded but make sure you don't have the ammunition near the gun. The second piece of advise should be the first on the list and is probably the only part of her article that is valid.

For those who would like to know how to act around any firearm, I will impart on you some advice. First, I would suggest you visit www.nra.org, search for your state association for contact information. Another way to get good information is to visit any place that sells firearms, it could be a gun store or a sporting goods store, talk to someone behind the gun counter for help. I have never men anyone in these places who wouldn't help answer any questions you may have. If there are any customers around, they may help out too. My advice on firearm safety is as follows:

1. Treat every firearm as if it were loaded. In doing this, you will not point it in an unsafe direction or handle it in an unsafe manner.
2. Do not point the firearm at anything you do not intend to shoot. Be aware of where the muzzle is pointing.
3. Keep your finger straight and off the trigger until you are ready to shoot. There is less chance that the trigger will be pulled when nothing is touching it.
4. Keep the firearm on safe until you are ready to fire. Not all firearms have safeties. Even if they do have one, they are mechanical and should not be trusted. This is the last check to keep you and everyone around you safe. If you live by the first three, this last rule is a failsafe.

Ther are valid reasons for going to see a medical professional; firearm safety is not one of them. Again, it is none of their business whether or not you own a firearm for now. If universal medicine is implemented in the United States, these questions may be standard and under a government bureaucracy, you could be required to answer them or risk being denied. Think this is a little far fetched? Patrick Henry, George Mason, and many others predicted that the Constitution would lead to this type of overreaching government.