Connecticut Yankee
Member
"The year gun control became a health-care issue"
Shooting Industry, Dec, 1993 by Jim Schneider
1993 will go down in the history books as the year gun control became a "health issue." Not that the anti-gunners haven't been trying to make it a health issue for a long time, but 1993 was the first time they had a strong supporter in the White House.
This strategy, simmering for months, came to a full boil with the introduction of the Clinton Administration's health care proposal in late September when President Clinton mentioned gun control in his address to the nation. Hillary Clinton -- the point man on health care -- has made her feelings clear on the subject as well.
On Sept. 28, she told Rep. Mel Reynolds (D, Ill.), who is sponsoring his own tax-the-guns bill, that she does indeed favor a tax on firearms but that first she would like to see various categories of firearms banned.
Two days later, she reaffirmed her desire to tax firearms under questioning in the Senate.
Then on Oct. 1, USA Today -- which has earned its reputation as one of the nation's leading advocates of gun control -- editorialized that, "It's only natural. It's utterly obvious. Gun control and health reform go hand in hand. Indeed, gun violence is a steady and powerful inflater of health costs.
"In 1985, the total medical costs of gun violence were more than $900 million. Three years later, the costs had risen to $1.2 billion. Low-ball figures for 1990 place the number at $1.4 billion. And costs surely are continuing to rise ...
"This is why President Clinton plugged gun control in his health-care speech.
"It's why Hillary Rodham Clinton, after opposing the idea, indicated ... that she supports a plan to more than double the 10 percent gun manufacturers' excise tax to help pay for health reform ..."
During the next 48 hours, those figures mushroomed, so that when Senator Bill Bradley (D, N.J.) appeared on CBS' "Face the Nation" program on Oct. 3, he was able to declare, "The fact of the matter is that the cost of guns should be measured by their impact on society, as well as the profit margin for the manufacturer and the profit margin for the dealer.
"There is a cost, and that cost is in health care. The President highlighted it the other night.
"$4 billion in health care costs every year in this country because of violence from guns. If you take lost productivity over a lifetime, it's $14 billion annually in revenues.
"My view is that the gun manufacturers have to bear some of the costs in the health care system. We can offset that by having a tax on handgun purchases and assault weapon purchases and the purchase of ammunition. I believe that's absolutely critical."
Whichever figures you accept -- those of USA Today or Senator Bradley -- the fact is that gun violence is responsible for a fraction of 1 percent of the total amount spent on medical care in this country (an estimated $752 billion in 1991). Of course, following this logic, shouldn't there be a hefty health tax on automobiles? Far more medical costs arise from car accidents than the misuse of firearms.
-snip-
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m3197/is_n12_v38/ai_14914345
Shooting Industry, Dec, 1993 by Jim Schneider
1993 will go down in the history books as the year gun control became a "health issue." Not that the anti-gunners haven't been trying to make it a health issue for a long time, but 1993 was the first time they had a strong supporter in the White House.
This strategy, simmering for months, came to a full boil with the introduction of the Clinton Administration's health care proposal in late September when President Clinton mentioned gun control in his address to the nation. Hillary Clinton -- the point man on health care -- has made her feelings clear on the subject as well.
On Sept. 28, she told Rep. Mel Reynolds (D, Ill.), who is sponsoring his own tax-the-guns bill, that she does indeed favor a tax on firearms but that first she would like to see various categories of firearms banned.
Two days later, she reaffirmed her desire to tax firearms under questioning in the Senate.
Then on Oct. 1, USA Today -- which has earned its reputation as one of the nation's leading advocates of gun control -- editorialized that, "It's only natural. It's utterly obvious. Gun control and health reform go hand in hand. Indeed, gun violence is a steady and powerful inflater of health costs.
"In 1985, the total medical costs of gun violence were more than $900 million. Three years later, the costs had risen to $1.2 billion. Low-ball figures for 1990 place the number at $1.4 billion. And costs surely are continuing to rise ...
"This is why President Clinton plugged gun control in his health-care speech.
"It's why Hillary Rodham Clinton, after opposing the idea, indicated ... that she supports a plan to more than double the 10 percent gun manufacturers' excise tax to help pay for health reform ..."
During the next 48 hours, those figures mushroomed, so that when Senator Bill Bradley (D, N.J.) appeared on CBS' "Face the Nation" program on Oct. 3, he was able to declare, "The fact of the matter is that the cost of guns should be measured by their impact on society, as well as the profit margin for the manufacturer and the profit margin for the dealer.
"There is a cost, and that cost is in health care. The President highlighted it the other night.
"$4 billion in health care costs every year in this country because of violence from guns. If you take lost productivity over a lifetime, it's $14 billion annually in revenues.
"My view is that the gun manufacturers have to bear some of the costs in the health care system. We can offset that by having a tax on handgun purchases and assault weapon purchases and the purchase of ammunition. I believe that's absolutely critical."
Whichever figures you accept -- those of USA Today or Senator Bradley -- the fact is that gun violence is responsible for a fraction of 1 percent of the total amount spent on medical care in this country (an estimated $752 billion in 1991). Of course, following this logic, shouldn't there be a hefty health tax on automobiles? Far more medical costs arise from car accidents than the misuse of firearms.
-snip-
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m3197/is_n12_v38/ai_14914345
