It's Not Too Soon to Debate Gun Control

[Hank77]

It adds accountability and discourages crime. Pretty simple.

How?

 

[Kenny'sID]

Here’s a hint........you’re allowed to amend them....

And here's another.......evidently the majority doesn't want to.

I live in a state with most of the tough gun laws and I think they are all valid and I'm glad that we have them

Mind if I ask what state?

 

[Almost there]

You really seem quite misinformed, how healthcare works.

My information comes from personal experience and the experiences of others.

The most interesting was actually very low dollars. I was at a doctor for a short visit and when I left pulled out my credit card to pay the $25 deductible. The girl at the counter asked if I just wanted to pay $20. I was confused and after a bit of explaining I finally understood it thusly:

I could make it an "insurance supported" visit, in which case I could pay my $25, or I could "buy the service" like I might buy an oil change and just pay them $20.

I paid the $20. But this was the beginning of knowledge for me. I've learned quite a bit since then and saved a lot, but not as much as many of my friends.

 

[Almost there]

Wrong. Medical providers do have a charge master, but they are typically based off of what is considered, usual and customary. Billed charges i will say again are meaningless. Most insurance companies reimburse healthcare providers off of the medicare fee schedule for all codes. You can bill whatever you want, but blue cross is still going to pay what they negotiated with you per contract.

The video gets into that.

I will say this: as obamacare collapses and more and more people are forced to pay for services out of pocket, I suspect billed charges will be more and more in line with actual costs.

And that is a VERY good thing. The best way to keep a thing cheap is to ensure the person using it is the person paying for it. Imagine how much lasik would cost if insurance covered it.

 

[bhsmte]

My information comes from personal experience and the experiences of others.

The most interesting was actually very low dollars. I was at a doctor for a short visit and when I left pulled out my credit card to pay the $25 deductible. The girl at the counter asked if I just wanted to pay $20. I was confused and after a bit of explaining I finally understood it thusly:

I could make it an "insurance supported" visit, in which case I could pay my $25, or I could "buy the service" like I might buy an oil change and just pay them $20.

I paid the $20. But this was the beginning of knowledge for me. I've learned quite a bit since then and saved a lot, but not as much as many of my friends.

Like i said, i have been in healthcare for over 20 years. You have a lot more to learn.

 

[Almost there]

Like i said, i have been in healthcare for over 20 years. You have a lot more to learn.

Oh, I'm sure I do. I was only in it for a couple of years in the 90's, and only in IT.

I saw a fascinating John Stossel video on it back in the days before obamacare. One fun part was about a whole foods employee trying to price a physical and not only were the prices all over the place, but most of the providers could not even quote a price. And you thought airline seats were bad.

 

[mark46]

You learned a lot. Insurance rates are based on the insured paying the $25. For example, if I need an non-generic antibiotic and the deductible is $25, and the non-insurance cost is $8.1l, then I could chose to GO to a pharmacy where my insurance data wasn't available and say that I had no insurance and pay $8.11. I would be in violation of my insurance contract. BYW, the clerk was in violation also.

Let me make it clear, insurance rates are determined by regulators. Within those rates is the responsibility for paying the deductible. Your approach is a sound one which certainly could be implemented. I suspect that it should with the deductible much, much higher. Then folks would shop around. Of course, at least initially, the rates would go up.

I'll give another example. There are discounts for prescriptions drugs sold at pharmacies. They are readily available online and even my the pharmacist themselves. Also, by medical providers (my physical therapist has a discount for the uninsured). HOWEVER, these discounts cannot be legally used by Medicare patients for drugs or services approved by Medicare. Again, the government could change that and increase the Medicare rates.

I could make it an "insurance supported" visit, in which case I could pay my $25, or I could "buy the service" like I might buy an oil change and just pay them $20.

I paid the $20. But this was the beginning of knowledge for me. I've learned quite a bit since then and saved a lot, but not as much as many of my friends.

 

[Cearbhall]

How?

Personally, my favorite effect is that it makes it easier to research routes of illegal trade.

 

[Almost there]

You learned a lot. Insurance rates are based on the insured paying the $25. For example, if I need an non-generic antibiotic and the deductible is $25, and the non-insurance cost is $8.1l, then I could chose to GO to a pharmacy where my insurance data wasn't available and say that I had no insurance and pay $8.11. I would be in violation of my insurance contract. BYW, the clerk was in violation also.

Let me make it clear, insurance rates are determined by regulators. Within those rates is the responsibility for paying the deductible. Your approach is a sound one which certainly could be implemented. I suspect that it should with the deductible much, much higher. Then folks would shop around. Of course, at least initially, the rates would go up.

I'll give another example. There are discounts for prescriptions drugs sold at pharmacies. They are readily available online and even my the pharmacist themselves. Also, by medical providers (my physical therapist has a discount for the uninsured). HOWEVER, these discounts cannot be legally used by Medicare patients for drugs or services approved by Medicare. Again, the government could change that and increase the Medicare rates.

For me, the phrase that jumped out of your post was "insurance rates are determined by regulators". Sounds Fascist.

My brother, like me, is a health nut. He uses an online doctor, I forget his name. He will not take insurance claims. I would really like to see a simple free market health insurance option that only covered the "big stuff". But it would have to be affordable. If I opted for a bronze plan right now I'd pay more for health insurance than my house payment, my car payment, my real estate taxes and my utility bills, COMBINED. i.e. it would be guaranteed life changing, to protect me from the possibility of something life changing happening. And since I would not ever undergo many standard treatments anyway, it would not really be of much use to me.

 

[mark46]

I agree that we need a fundamental overhaul of the health care system. Let me give the example of alternative medicine, well, at least legal alternative medicine.

This should be supported by hospitals, doctors, and insurance companies. They often are. For example, meditation "therapy" before surgery is become common. If one were to be a member of Kaiser, where all medical costs are the responsibility of the provider (after paying your monthly fee and deductibles if any).
I'm sure that many types of preventive and alternative services are encouraged. After all, these decreasing the cost of care, their cost.

It is $40K because of many, many reasons. Some are societal costs, such as hospital subsidies to poor patients. Some costs are because of bureaucratic rules (like not buy-in Canadian drugs that are perhaps not of quality for sale in the US). Some costs are due to insurance costs to the doctors and hospital. Some are due to paying for the training of doctors, nurses, and technicians. For example, we might compare the costs with the same procedures in an Indian hospital. A surgeon might do surgery at your home in KY as a favor and charge much less than in the hospital. Some would consider this a bargain; some would not.

So, obviously an aspirin delivered by a nurse doesn't cost $10. I'm not sure. I've done hundreds of financial studies in my time. We have to add the cost of the nurse'e time, doctor's oversight, hospital facility and lots of other overheads. At the doctor's office, (s)he might give me a month's supply of almost anything. If he were to actually charge for a nurse giving me medication, the cost would be considerable.

The real question should be, "Why was it $40k?"

 

[mark46]

For me, the phrase that jumped out of your post was "insurance rates are determined by regulators". Sounds Fascist.

You have stated your opinion of the federal government. I am not surprise that you also oppose state governmental legislation and regulation.

 

[Almost there]

I agree that we need a fundamental overhaul of the health care system. Let me give the example of alternative medicine, well, at least legal alternative medicine.

This should be supported by hospitals, doctors, and insurance companies. They often are. For example, meditation "therapy" before surgery is become common. If one were to be a member of Kaiser, where all medical costs are the responsibility of the provider (after paying your monthly fee and deductibles if any).
I'm sure that many types of preventive and alternative services are encouraged. After all, these decreasing the cost of care, their cost.

It is $40K because of many, many reasons. Some are societal costs, such as hospital subsidies to poor patients. Some costs are because of bureaucratic rules (like not buy-in Canadian drugs that are perhaps not of quality for sale in the US). Some costs are due to insurance costs to the doctors and hospital. Some are due to paying for the training of doctors, nurses, and technicians. For example, we might compare the costs with the same procedures in an Indian hospital. A surgeon might do surgery at your home in KY as a favor and charge much less than in the hospital. Some would consider this a bargain; some would not.

So, obviously an aspirin delivered by a nurse doesn't cost $10. I'm not sure. I've done hundreds of financial studies in my time. We have to add the cost of the nurse'e time, doctor's oversight, hospital facility and lots of other overheads. At the doctor's office, (s)he might give me a month's supply of almost anything. If he were to actually charge for a nurse giving me medication, the cost would be considerable.

I'm in IT and a contractor. We are typically billed out at $100 an hour. That is not what we see, but how we are factored into a project estimate. I could imagine a doctor being billed out at maybe $300 an hour and a really good brain surgeon at $600, but that still doesn't justify some of the costs I've seen. BTW, I have a VERY well off acquaintance that makes all his money designing and selling medical equipment. There are so many legal, government and other costs associated with health care that it's so stupid expensive, it's a bit like going to a third world country and taking all cars and motor scooters off the street and insisting that everyone buys a Mercedes or walks.

 

[Almost there]

You have stated your opinion of the federal government. I am not surprise that you also oppose state governmental legislation and regulation.

It's fine up to a point. I left a state where you need a permit to collect the rain water off your roof.

Those that like regulation can move to California. I moved to KY to get away from it. My daughter just moved from California to Arizona for the same reason.

 

[expos4ever]

The problem is the person. And this one raised a lot of red flags. The solution is to pay attention to those flags.

No. And we should really not have to debate this. A 10 year old knows that an angry unstable person is much more dangerous with a gun than without.

The fact the the person is a "problem" - and who would disagree with that? - certainly does not mean the gun is not also a "problem".

 

[jardiniere]

I read both articles. There are some really stupid comments made. Mentors are not going to be taking 2 yr. old toddlers or newborns hunting. Those kinds of statements make the objectors sound like they don't have any ligament arguments.
The whole point of a mentor is to keep the kid safe, doing some of the thinking for them, while they are learning to think for themselves while hunting.

Here's the thing though. It will happen, because people will take their young child out to shoot, not knowing what good mentoring involves. If people leave their loaded guns on the kitchen table that a kid can reach, I know they are stupid enough to think their toddler can handle a weapon.

I wouldn't expect a 10 yr old to do all the thinking for themselves anymore than I did when I taught my kids to drive. Both are new experiences with new challenges.
They more experience they have while under experienced supervision the more capable they will be when they are on their own.

I think ten is just fine to take a kid out hunting or plinking. I did it, I wasn't harmed by it. After all these years thinking about it, I do think I should have been better trained. I only got real firearm training at high school age. I'm not sure a five year old is ever ready to handle a gun, but I'm convinced some mom or dad thinks their five year old is ready right now.

Here are the youth hunting laws by state. So if there is a argument to be made maybe the thing to do is find out why these states, near you, have stricter laws or not as strict laws, such as MN. The opposers should make an argument based on statistics, rather than what they think someone might do, if they want to be taken seriously.
https://gothunts.com/hunting-age-requirements/

Here you go.

 

[Hank77]

Mind if I ask what state?

I'd rather not but I can tell you what our laws are, they are not exclusive to this state.

There is no official registration for any gun. However, the licensed gun dealer must keep records with the the buyer's personal info. name, address, etc. and the info from the gun that was purchased, model, serial number, etc. These records must be available to authorities at all times.

For ALL transfers of ownership [exemption for close family members] a background check must be completed for the prospective buyer first. The license gun dealer must keep these records.

Guns bought at gun shows cannot be transferred to a new owner until after a background check has been completed. Same deal the licensed gun dealer must keep all the same records as the storefront dealer.

Felons and those convicted of domestic violence cannot own firearms.

Generally speaking one must be at least 18 to be in the possession of a firearm, except in certain scenarios and places, hunting, firearms sports events, with parental supervision on their private property. This is both long guns and hand guns.

Must have a permit for canceled carry on one's person, but not in a vehicle or when hunting.

Guns in vehicles must not have a bullet in the chamber.

I may have forgotten something but ask me if you questions.

 

[LostMarbels]

No. And we should really not have to debate this. A 10 year old knows that an angry unstable person is much more dangerous with a gun than without.

The fact the the person is a "problem" - and who would disagree with that? - certainly does not mean the gun is not also a "problem".

This is your opinion. You need to get to terms with the fact that others have them also. That causes debate, here on a forum where people post opinions... to have a debate.

I am of the mindest, that an unstable person is dangerous regardless if they are armed or not. Just by claiming a person is unstable speaks nothing of the person's mental acuity, rationale, intellect, nor their problem-solving capabilities. A person could be nuttier than a squirrel turd but have the intelligence to masterfully plan out and execute a 4 1/2 year long mass murder spree with many, many victims. And have never even used a gun. Because in his rationale: 'guns are evil and make him want to do dirty things'.

Some sickos want to burn people. Others rape. This entire fascination with guns somehow, no longer being an inanimate object, but somehow subject their will on unsuspecting victims they chose to kill, is crazy. It is an object. The gun itself, kills no one. An individual must make a decision, by choice, to act out in violence. Regardless of what, or if any implementation is utilized.

 

[Hank77]

Personally, my favorite effect is that it makes it easier to research routes of illegal trade.

That can already be done through the records kept by licensed gun dealers when they do background checks.
Right now the authorities could have that info where a background check was run on me when I purchased my last rifle. If they contact that gun dealer, he has all the info. on me and the gun I purchased. If I were to sell that gun they would go to the gun dealer where the background check was run on the new owner and have all their info.
If they were to find a hand gun at a crime scene they can run that gun through a data base from the manufacturer to the license gun dealer who bought it and from there trace who last owned it. Everyone has to keep records of every gun sale.

But states that don't do background checks for gun show sales or private sales don't have complete gun transfer records.

 

[Kenny'sID]

I'd rather not but I can tell you what our laws are, they are not exclusive to this state.

There is no official registration for any gun. However, the licensed gun dealer must keep records with the the buyer's personal info. name, address, etc. and the info from the gun that was purchased, model, serial number, etc. These records must be available to authorities at all times.

For ALL transfers of ownership [exemption for close family members] a background check must be completed for the prospective buyer first. The license gun dealer must keep these records.

Guns bought at gun shows cannot be transferred to a new owner until after a background check has been completed. Same deal the licensed gun dealer must keep all the same records as the storefront dealer.

Felons and those convicted of domestic violence cannot own firearms.

Generally speaking one must be at least 18 to be in the possession of a firearm, except in certain scenarios and places, hunting, firearms sports events, with parental supervision on their private property. This is both long guns and hand guns.

Must have a permit for canceled carry on one's person, but not in a vehicle or when hunting.

Guns in vehicles must not have a bullet in the chamber.

I may have forgotten something but ask me if you questions.

What states have similar regulations to yours?

My concern was, how's that working for the state...stats and all.

 

[Hank77]

Here's the thing though. It will happen, because people will take their young child out to shoot, not knowing what good mentoring involves. If people leave their loaded guns on the kitchen table that a kid can reach, I know they are stupid enough to think their toddler can handle a weapon.

I think that you are comparing hunting parents and hunting mentors who have taken gun safety classes and are very gun safety conscious to the average bloke who just went down and bought a gun without any kind of real training, certification, or experience with a gun.