New surgeon general

C

Crankgrinder

New member
Lets talk about the new surgeon general. We all know who the new surgeon general is and what his position on guns is all about. Seeing as how he believes firearms are a healthcare issue, and with obamacare/socialized medicine, how much of a threat is this guy?
 
Well thank you Tom, it doesn't seem people are too worried about this guy. I couldn't help but wonder how far things could go what with healthcare going the way it is if they start calling it a health issue. Could people end up taxed exorbitabtly or see big increases on their insurance due to what the government sees as an "unhealthy lifestyle"?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Could people end up taxed exorbitabtly or see big increases on their insurance due to what the government sees as an "unhealthy lifestyle"?
Click to expand...
The first idea would have to go through the legislative process, which I don't see being successful. The second also seems unlikely, though it would be down to individual insurers. The problem with that is the fact that they'd receive no end of grief from the >50% of their customers who participate in that "unhealthy" lifestyle.

This guy's probably going to make a lot of noise about gun violence as a public-health problem. That's nothing new. Wintemute and the guys at Johns Hopkins have been doing that for two decades.

If he does enough of it, he'll find himself out of a job sooner or later.
 
There is a legitimate concern. (though he's not much differnet than the last one) While changes to private insurance would need to go through the legislature, at least it was that way before executive order days, they can impose a lot more nonsense on govt employees policies, and even govt subsidized policies to punish gunowners. There were already reports of trying to "register" gun owners with questions on Obamacare applications about gun ownership.
 
I get a little concerned that he'd be a champion for suing the "gun industry" just as the Tobacco industy was sued and punished for damaging the health of too many Americans. This was despite the fact that cigarette packs had health warnings on every package and sales were limited to adults, 18 years and older.

The tobacco companies paid out 10's of billions of dollars to comply with the findings in the lawsuits against them. I doubt many firearms companies could handle the fines as the tobacco companies had to pay.
 
The anti-gun lobby tends to focus a lot on emotion since the actual facts don’t support their calls for more restriction. I wonder if this guy might initiate, influence or manipulate studies that could then be presented as factual reasons for implementing more gun control.
 
This was despite the fact that cigarette packs had health warnings on every package and sales were limited to adults, 18 years and older.
Click to expand...
There were other issues with tobacco. The lobby was shown to have covered up data about the harm of cigarettes, added chemicals to make them more addictive (and hazardous), and falsely claimed to be ignorant of the link to lung cancer.

The same arguments can't really be made of guns. Furthermore, it can easily be argued that guns serve many useful purposes, something that can't be said of tobacco.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top