Doc Intrepid
New member
From a lawful firearms owner perspective, this is one of the issues that I find most alarming about the linkage between the Democratic administration's Health Care Reform Bill and the American Medical Association's (AMA) focus on "firearms in society as disease" analogy: the health care reform bill could easily be used to restrict firearms ownership in any number of ways, due to the relationship established by the AMA between "firearms ownership" and "U.S. Health Risks".Glenn E. Meyer said:"So could an insurance company deny coverage based on firearms ownership? That's been hinted at..."
Skeptical? Peruse these articles:
"...(Firearms) Violence as a Public Health Problem" (AMA, JAMA 2009) -
http://virtualmentor.ama-assn.org/2009/02/mhst1-0902.html
"Under the Gun: Threat Assessment in Schools" (AMA, JAMA) -
http://virtualmentor.ama-assn.org/2009/02/pfor1-0902.html
"Assault weapons as a public health hazard in the U.S." (AMA, JAMA) -
http://www.faqs.org/abstracts/Healt...ublic-health-hazard-in-the-United-States.html
"Doctors to Ask Patients About Gun Ownership" -
http://www.aapsonline.org/jpands/hacienda/edcor8.html
A successful effort by the U.S. government to establish a relationship with empirical linkages between 'Public Health Care' and 'Firearms Ownership' could conceivably result in increasing efforts to restrict firearms ownership in an attempt to 'make public health care more affordable'.
It's tough to predict the future - but there can be little doubt that the American Medical Association, certain political parties, and special interest groups such as Insurers or the Brady organization could create all sorts of alliances that ultimately cast a chilling effect on unrestricted firearms ownership or activities such as hunting.
FWIW.
YMMV.