<p>What is “saved” from one pocket by cutting people off Medicaid or other assisted rolls will still be spent as they show up in ERs/EDs, needing life-saving care and in much worse health. How is that any REAL “savings”?</p>
<p>I’m just glad that H is insured by his job & that the insurance covers all of us for his lifetime & also me for my lifetime. Am hoping that before the kids turn 26, D will be able to purchase some form of insurance.</p>
<p>At some point, it may be worthwhile to attend whatever courses are required so that you can purchase student insurance, if they offer decent coverage at low premiums, who knows? May have to investigate this if D doesn’t get insurance after she ages off H’s policy.</p>
<p>Mini- a very good friend of mine was running a marathon in Philadelphia a number of year ago and his heart stopped about 1 mile from the finish line. Luckily paramedics were able to revive him but he had to 6 weeks in hospital in the States. His total bill was close to $750k but our provincial insurance covered what would have been the cost for the same treatment here, about 80% and our employers extended insurance covered the balance. Even my D going to college in the States has our full coverage and college has included what they call evacuation insurance, in other words get her back to Canada as quickly as possible unless it is a life threatening situation in which case our insurances take over.</p>
<p>The theory is that these are people who are not covered now, and won’t be covered then, so as far as visiting the ERs, etc., it would be a wash. But health care reform will fail even as the Supreme Court supposedly saved it.</p>
<p>PercussionDad - I congratulate you on living in a civilized place. My former business had an office in BC (still does), and the health care was (and is) superb. The injured victims in the shooting are doubly victimized.</p>
<p>Could be worse (trebly or quadruply [sp?] victimized) if sovereign immunity and/or tort reform caps on damages apply to claims against the mental health provider/state university. What is Colorado law on this?</p>
<p>The recent Pew Research poll on gun control after this shooting is being cited for the fact that there is no consensus on gun control and that the most recent shooting did not change that fact.</p>
<p>One observation I read was that a majority of people when polled have their primary focus on the mental instability of the shooter who does a mass killing and the randomness of such events.</p>
<p>Folks in other countries think we’re a bunch of idiots, both as regards our gun addiction and our absurdist health careless system. (And many of them think they are part of the same thing.)</p>
<p>It is interesting that almost all Western Europe and Scandinavia are in the top 15 highest rates of gun ownership. To be in the top 15 means at least 30 out of 100 citizens own a firearm.</p>
<p>Check Canada out. It is in there at number 13. It is estimated that there are between 900,000 and 5 million unresgistered firearms in Canada</p>
<p>07DAD you forget to say that there are between 270 and 290 million unresgistered in the USA. I have never stated that our system is / was or could be perfect but at least we have something. I would rather be number 13 than number 1 on a list of weapons per 100 people. 88% of Americans versus 30% of Canadians. I wish we were at 0% but that will never happen.</p>
<p>I am not a gun owner, but as I understand the distrinction a government may require a license or permit to the person in order for that person to legally own a firearm and/or may also require that the firearm itself be registered. I think in the US certain firearms require the person get a license or permit to buy/own but I think that there is not a requirement to register all firearms. I’m sure some CC poster(s) will know.</p>
<p>My point is that the rest of the Westernized world is hardly “gun free” nor is there some national moral superiority involved.</p>
<p>07DAD –
I am not a gun owner either and have no intention of ever being one. Anyone who thinks they are gun free is dreaming in technicolor. As you may be aware we have had a couple of gang related shootings in the Toronto area in the past month and to everyones surprise(NOT) the guns used were not registered. The whole thing is just plain scary, and can happen anywhere, anytime and for no apparent reason.</p>
<p>We’re not talking about religious fanatics or people who, in other respects, are especially anti-American. We’re talking about well-educated people in democratic countries with high standards of living. We’re talking about countries that have higher levels of public health and much lower levels of crime than we do. So, maybe we have something to learn from them.</p>
<p>Switzerland is an interesting European example.<br>
The Swiss think of gun ownership not so much as a right as a responsibility, one closely associated with what we would call a “well-ordered militia”. Compared to our state of affairs, I think their system is a more mature, more effective realization of what our founding fathers must have had in mind.
[Gun</a> politics in Switzerland - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia](<a href=“http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Switzerland]Gun”>Firearms regulation in Switzerland - Wikipedia)</p>
Certain states require permits to own. Illinois and Massachusetts come to mind (not that permits seem to help Chicago’s crime rates).<br>
Certain firearms require a federal tax stamp (which requires more paperwork, background checks, the signature of the chief of local law enforcement, a 4-6 month average wait time, and $200 for most of the stamps). Those would be NFA Title II firearms, which include automatic and select-fire firearms (assault rifles, machine guns, sub-machine guns, etc), short barreled rifles (barrel under 16in), short barreled shotguns (barrel under 18in), destructive devices (rifled firearms over .50 caliber, some shotguns, explosive shells, etc), and sound suppressors (not firearms, but still heavily regulated by the law).</p>
<p>Keep in mind that isn’t rate of gun ownership, but total guns owned per 100 people. That means if you have an end-of-times guy down the block, his stockpile could be enough to more than compensate for half the rest of your town not owning a firearm.</p>
<p>“And why exactly do we care what other people think again?”</p>
<p>Because, generally speaking, when other folks have better health and fewer deaths and think they know the reason, you might just be a little bit interested in knowing why.</p>
<p>Using the small gun survey commissioned by the UN, there are less than 250,000 homicides by firearms ***per year ***in the reporting countries.</p>
<p>There are a total of nearly 70,000 homicides by firearms in the four (4) countries with greater numbers of firearm homicides per year than the US which has in the 9000-ish range. The country with the highest number (Brazil) has nearly 4 times the number of the US.</p>
<p>I wonder how many Indians are going to die because of the power outages in India?</p>
<p>Oh, quite a few. Not as many as those resulting from the planting of GMO cotton crops (and resulting farmer suicides), or from the destruction of the water table by Coca-Cola (both of which allowed by the Indian government), but the number will be significant.</p>
<p>I recall that the Indian minster who called the US immoral for switching from food crops to corn for ethanol because of the massive number of Indians that would die as food crop prices rose.</p>