matt | May 24, 2006
Nifty bill to be introduced into congress
Basically, under this law, I (a resident of Rhode Island) can go to gun shows with my Father In Law (a resident of New York) in New York and buy guns there without having to pay extra to have them shipped to a dealer in RI + the RI dealer's FFL transfer fee.
I guess the basic idea is that the interstate ban was enacted before the background checks. Since we have that fancy federal instant check system (good or bad), we no longer have to have background checks done at the state level. So, why is this old ban still applied?
matt | May 23, 2006
For the uninitiated, the UN is holding a conference on an international treaty to ban guns. The date? The 4th of July. NRA Site on it
matt | May 8, 2006
Okay, so as many of you know. Massachusetts is requiring citizens to purchase health care via a variety of options, depending on income level.
I think the idea here is that it will lower health care costs for the rest of us if we stop having to subsidize (either through taxes or higher medical bills) the care of others. They will have their own insurance, so they pay their share.
Now, I don't have a problem with this idea, right up until the government gets involved in mandating it. Of course, my solution is that doctors should simply refuse to treat people who cannot pay – this will force people to purchase health insurance, pay bills out of pocket, or seek alternate methods of treatment (including not going to the doctor for every little bump and scrape).
The common response to this is “but doctors have to treat people – it's part of the Hippocratic oath”. Fair enough.
Here is the modern version.
I can find nothing in there which says that you have to treat anyone who comes to your door.
Liz says that she things this says so fairly clearly:
I will apply, for the benefit of the sick, all measures [that] are required, avoiding those twin traps of overtreatment and therapeutic nihilism.
I disagree – I think this says how you must treat those which you decide to treat, not that you must actually treat everyone.
But wait, it gets better. Looking at the Classical Version it would appear that the following are specifically banned:
However, note their absence in the modern version. Of course, we can’t have that. That’s progress! We’ll allow abortions and make vast sums of money off medical schools (contributing to high health care costs as doctors command huge salaries as a benefit for those long years of toil and expense), but heaven forbid if we allow a free market economy to dictate price.
How about this: You can run your hospital however you like. This includes not treating people who can’t pay. Some hospitals will, some won’t. Let the market decide.
(Insert token socialist whiner here)
But, if that were the case, then all the doctors would charge people and the poor wouldn’t get any medical care.
To which I respond:
Right, just like they never get any legal help because lawyers don’t do pro-bono work.
- Charging sons of doctors for medical school
… and to regard his offspring as equal to my brothers in male lineage and to teach them this art – if they desire to learn it – without fee and covenant;…
Similarly I will not give to a woman an abortive remedy.
matt | May 2, 2006
Okay, so why the hell has a discussion about foreign invaders* been turned into a discussion about immigration? What amazes me is that otherwise intelligent people are being duped by this crap. This is not an anti-immigrant argument!
- Immigrants come to the country, go through customs, are naturalized, and become citizens.
Visitors (including those with work visas and so forth) come to the country, go through customs, and stay for a visit.
Anyone else is a foreign invader and should be treated accordingly.
In other news, I've discoverd Thai Tea. I was in a Thai restaurant and we ordered tea, and it was very good. They sold us a bag and this appears to be this stuff.