Assault Weapons

I'll warn you up front; I have a pretty unpopular opinion about banning assault weapons. Nearly everyone I talked to has looked at me like I just said the Dumbest Thing Ever.

So I agree that something needs to be done about gun violence in this country. A young man in Philadelphia has a greater chance of being shot than a soldier in Afghanistan. Clearly whatever we're doing is not working.

Yet the problem I have is when people say, "You shouldn't be allowed to buy an assault rifle. Why do you need one?"

Well, I have a samurai sword I don't need. Also keep a serious utility knife by the bed. Not to mention all the baseball bats and power tools that could do serious damage.

I don't need any of these, but I want them and I bought them. I'm concerned this line of thinking will expand to other types of weapons. Swords, nun-chucks, throwing stars, machetes, etc.

But none of those are weapons that can kill crowds of people, you say.

That is true. If I wanted to take out a crowd, I can get all the supplies I need from a hardware store and make a pipe bomb. Just saying.

Look, my point is the weapon itself is just a blunt object. Like my samurai sword, it is a display item in the homes of collectors. Without ammunition, it's just a weird paper weight.

That's right, ammo is the real danger, not the weapon. Being able to buy armor piercing rounds, hollow points, or 30 round magazines of 5.56mm or 7.62mm. Is the sniper rifle a problem or the 50 caliber ammunition?

A real chicken and egg argument.

Guns and weapons have always been valuable and highly collectible among historians and war buffs. Ammo, not so much. I think if you ban the weapon, you increase the black market. If you ban the ammo, well there would still be a black market for it, but not as large. And if confiscated, ammo is easier to render inert and dispose. Look up Explosive Ordinance Disposal (EOD) if you don't believe me.

It also gets around the second amendment nicely. Sure you have the right to bear arms, but it doesn't say anything about ammo.

Obamacare

Generally, I am pleased the Supreme Court upheld Obamacare. While I have reservations about it, I find it hard to be against any bill that will help people with pre-existing conditions and people under 26 years old.

I hear a lot of rhetoric to repeal the law, which effectively means keep excluding people because they have asthma or diabetes or high blood pressure. I can't get behind that.

There are people who must keep working in order to keep their insurance. If you suffer from a chronic illness, you better pray not to ever get laid off. That's unacceptable.

Though, if we stop talking repeal and start talking about fixing the holes in the law, I'm all aboard. My concerns are this:

1. General practice doctors.
The point of the law is to reduce medical costs. Some of the high costs are people using the ER for minor concerns. They could go to their regular doctor, if they were insured and had a regular doctor.

So now you have a whole new population with medical insurance. Do we have enough general practice doctors, internists, and family practices? I have a feeling the answer is no. It may mean your doctor has less time to see you, and you can't always get an appointment when you need one.

You know, when you are suffering from the flu and it's god awful and you just want your doctor? Mine always has time for me. But if she takes on another 100 patients, that's not going to be the case.

I think we need programs to get people into medical school and push them into general practice, not cardiology or surgery. Possibly help them repay student loans.

2. Employers dropping insurance.
What is to prevent employers from dropping expensive insurance and pushing their employees into the government exchange. Particularly small businesses. Yeah okay, the exchange doesn't sound too bad. It's still based on free market policies with insurance companies competing for customers. Still, it's change and people don't like change.

3. Enforcing the penalty.
I guess this will fall on the IRS. Our 1040s may have a new box, "are you insured?" "If not, calculate 8% of your AGI here." "If the least expensive plan in the AGI is more than 8% of your income, please write a zero here." "If the least expensive plan in the AGI is less than 8% of your income, please send a penalty fee to the Government."

Well, shit. People are going to hate that new complication on their taxes.

That is how Chief Roberts ruled. The mandate requiring health care is a tax, not a penalty. If you think about it, there's actually some precedence for taxing people on what they choose NOT to do. I do not have children and therefore pay more taxes than a family that does. I don't use the public school system, but still pay taxes to support it. I don't benefit from Medicare or Social Security but still pay into it.

Everyone at some point in their life will need a doctor. Call it a mandate or a tax or a penalty, it does seem reasonable that everyone should pay into healthcare at the federal level. States don't bear all the cost of health insurance; a lot of it comes from the federal government. So what happens in Mississippi affects the taxpayers in North Carolina. If the SCOTUS needs to justify it by calling a tax, okay, let's call it a tax.

So I guess this is up to the IRS to enforce. Hello new 1040s.

4. Parents.
Honestly, I've always found it stupid that I can't include my parents on my health insurance. Or at least have the option of Self, Family, and Extended Family. Yeah it would be expensive as all shit, but it would still be better than what they can purchase independently. If our parents can carry us under their plans until we're 26, I should have the option to return the favor. In a way I'm already doing it, as I pay into Medicare and Social Security.

It would remove the cost of treating the elderly from the federal budget. Yes it would be deferred to families and employers, but if it decreases federal spending, I call that a win-win.

I know I'm in the minority on this issue.

Anyway, I'm glad it's been upheld, even though it has some issues. We should focus our energies on addressing those issues, not repealing the law.