Posted on 01/16/2013 9:49:53 AM PST by illiac
“I don’t remember, doc.... but the voices say that I should.”
“DocStapo.....”
It fits, like “docs against Glocks”.
Scary, how a physician’s political views can now be dangerous to your freedoms.
Perhaps the NRA could have its own listing of doctors who are amenable to patriots.
Now that is one OUTSTANDING idea, I bet over 4 Million members would use that list. I know I would.
MOLON LABE
come and take them if you can
Doctors will be liable for any violence with a gun if they do not ask.
As a doctor, I’ll ask that question only if it is pertinent.... for instance, when the patient appears to be suicidal or homicidal...or makes threats to others...otherwise it is none of my business personally nor professionally if they exercise their constitutional rights!
The only connection doctors should have with guns (other than their own personal owndership/use) is to treat gunshot wounds.
NOTHING ELSE! It’s not their GD business!
Health insurers will charge an additional 30% under Obama Care, if you have guns in your home. Thats the next step. Soon people will have to decide between health insurance and possession of guns.
Doctors will question you, your wife, and your kids ( “ Do you have any guns in your home?).
Ok. I’m happy to take any extras people don’t want and educate my patients on the need for self defense. Oh, that’s not what he had in mind???
the same Docs he pissed all over and insulted , those Docs.???
my Doc has already told me obama care and socialist health care is wrong, he also told me about how many Docs think stay silent on the sick practise of homosexuality and all the diseases from feces they get but PC stops them from saying this openly.
If obama thinks the Docs around this part of the state will help him then he;s even more of an idiot than I first thought
Of course, we can and many/most will just say no. However, if the ATF gets their mitts on the 4473's and they tie the Obamacare national healthcare database together that's defacto gun registration. From there they can do all sorts of nefarious things like withhold healthcare, levy additional taxes, etc.
They will just regulate the rest of our guns out of existence like full autos are today.
My husband was in the ER for some sort of panic/breathing issue a few months ago. The nurse asked, right in front of me, if he felt safe at home. I rolled my eyes and said, “I know what’s coming next...”
The nurse said it was indeed a new, goobt-mandated question. I told my husband to be sure not to answer anything about guns — should they get him alone or caught unaware.
I also thought it was ridiculous — because let’s just say I was poisoning (or abusing) him or something. Or vice versa. They’re asking right in front of the spouse, what else is he going to say but “yes,” he feels safe. The nonsense in this day and age...
We should just tell them that it would jeopardise our families’ safety to answer, considering how leftist hack cowards like to get hold of this information by hook or crook and publish it to the world.
If they ask if you got guns tell them to break in and find out.
If you are carried out with a hole in you, yes.
If a shaft in your chest, a bow and arrow.
If a BIG shaft, a spear.
If your head is in two parts, an ax.
This was big back in the 90’s and the early 00’s, (these cats never have any new ideas, it’s always the same old nonsense).
I did offer to take the doc to the range for a free NRA certified pistol lesson, which offer was rather rudely declined.
>http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2973699/posts
O’F**Kwad LIES ~!
It IS in the bill...........<
Executive Order #2 deals with this little glitch, unfortunately.
What? Seriously? I’d find a new gastro doc. He’s obviously a tool.
*****
Not so. From the PACA [Obamacare law]:
LIMITATION ON DETERMINATION OF PREMIUM RATES OR ELIGIBILITY FOR HEALTH INSURANCE.
A premium rate may not be increased, health insurance coverage may not be denied, and a discount, rebate, or reward offered for participation in a wellness program may not be reduced or withheld under any health benefit plan issued pursuant to or in accordance with the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act or an amendment made by that Act on the basis of, or on reliance upon—
(A) the lawful ownership or possession of a firearm or ammunition; or
(B) the lawful use or storage of a firearm or ammunition.
Yes, but that doesn’t mean that the risk to health is not greater due to violence in the home where a child is being taught to use a fire arm, even though too young to use a firearm.
That would be an increased health risk due to likely violence, not due to the ownership of a firearm or ammunition.
There is no way this clause you have cited would be a stop gap to assessing a greater health risk and thus a greater premium, or denial of service, due to potential violence in the home.
You need to read how the Nazis did it in Germany, where such protections as you cite were easily circumvented by other derivative catchment.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.