General Discussion

CK_John

(10,005 posts) Mon Apr 22, 2013, 10:03 PM Apr 2013

Why I think that adding the requirement for medical treatment for gunshots would pass and

enough states(38) to amend the second amendment is because everybody would get paid.

The GOP insurance industry would make a lot of money off the feds and the states would be off the hook to pay and the hospitals would now get paid also.

Treatment would be standardized and trauma centers would be the norm not the provenance of the major urban centers.

Of course the GOP would complain about the feds adding fees to gun/ammo sales or other methods to pay for this right but their greedy side would kick in with those buckets of cash.

6 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Why I think that adding the requirement for medical treatment for gunshots would pass and (Original Post) CK_John Apr 2013 OP

Lots of folks would get paid, but would there be any mandate that healing occurred? Trillo Apr 2013 #1

Yesterday I proposed admending the 2nd Amendment like so rather than repealing it. CK_John Apr 2013 #2

Perhaps if you could post the amendment as revised. Loudly Apr 2013 #3

You are guilty of DU's biggest problem, letting perfection stand in the way of progress. CK_John Apr 2013 #4

You can't accuse me of that. Loudly Apr 2013 #5

My bad, I didn't mean "you" but the collective you. Many seem to always want the end product without CK_John Apr 2013 #6

Trillo

(9,154 posts)

1. Lots of folks would get paid, but would there be any mandate that healing occurred?

Reply to CK_John (Original post)

Mon Apr 22, 2013, 10:09 PM

Apr 2013

This seems like it is a conversation that occurred elsewhere, so perhaps I'm not understanding the context.

CK_John

(10,005 posts)

2. Yesterday I proposed admending the 2nd Amendment like so rather than repealing it.

Reply to Trillo (Reply #1)

Mon Apr 22, 2013, 10:18 PM

Apr 2013

Text fro earlier post.

Amend 2A to provide national health care resulting from guns. This could be paid for by adding a fee to every gun purchase. This doesn't need to be part of the admendment but part of the implementation by Congress.

This would not be of any assistance to the current victims in Boston except the police officer wounded, It is still needed to prevent financial ruin along with medical wounds.

Urge your state reps to step up and start the process.

Loudly

(2,436 posts)

3. Perhaps if you could post the amendment as revised.

Reply to CK_John (Original post)

Mon Apr 22, 2013, 10:32 PM

Apr 2013

Because the fearful, bigoted and violent American People are going to need to evaluate it before deciding.

CK_John

(10,005 posts)

4. You are guilty of DU's biggest problem, letting perfection stand in the way of progress.

Reply to Loudly (Reply #3)

Mon Apr 22, 2013, 10:45 PM

Apr 2013

Start the process and it will produce an amendment. That's how things get done, instead of studying everything forever.

Loudly

(2,436 posts)

5. You can't accuse me of that.

Reply to CK_John (Reply #4)

Mon Apr 22, 2013, 10:51 PM

Apr 2013

Not while I have been steadfastly advocating for the following Amendment to invalidate the Citizens United decision.

It shall not be an infringement of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution for legislatures to limit by law the raising and expenditure of money in public elections.

CK_John

(10,005 posts)

6. My bad, I didn't mean "you" but the collective you. Many seem to always want the end product without