Gun Control Saves Lives

I would agree with Cristian Jaramillo's view on stricter gun control. Once a gun has 'hit the streets', there's little to no telling or means to track the intended purpose of use. While background checks may be a deterent, those with no history of violence may feel empowered and use the weapon with wrong intentions. Further more, what happens to those who decide to rid if a weapon? Many times in the reselling of guns, they more than not happen in discreet manners and profit drives poor decisions by previous owners to rid of a gun quickly. The United States holds the number one position in gun violence for developed countries. Further more, music and videos depict gun ownership as power and means to getting what isn't easily obtained through hard honest work. I do agree that guns have their place in hunting and marksmanship. As for the self defense argument, wouldn't getting guns off the streets lower the threat in neighborhoods where residents live in fear. This fear may also be so overwhelming and providing a gun to someone living in constant fear very likely will lead to accidental shootings. Again, taking guns off the streets rids us of this fear and possibility of guns falling into the wrong hands. Also, there is the millions of tax payer dollars spent on fighting gun crime and caring for those lives we attempt to save from gun violence. A majority of gun violence happens in poorer economic areas where many don't have health insurance but yet we must care for them and the hardworking pick up the tab. This is why I also think gun control even outweighs the need for health care reform.

Opt-Out Proposal Undermines a Strong Public Option

Debate started Monday in the Senate over the different proposed Health Care Reform bills and already there is much debate between the bill passed in House and what the Senate is proposing. The New York Times helped simplify this by providing readers an interactive plan comparison. In my opinion, the Senate plan is the better of the two in how it addresses paying for such a plan and the excise tax on so called Cadillac plans which are deemed premium plans that really add little additional value. However, the Senate plan does propose an 'opt-out' option for states that does concern me given this seems to me to be more of a political move in reducing political opposition that eventually could lead to quicker resolution and passing of bill. However, as I think more about such a proposal, doesn't it undermine a need for a strong public option?
These are essentially equivalent, but requiring legislative action to opt-in would probably
decrease the likelihood of state participation relative to the opting-out. My concern with such a proposal is that if a state legislation did move forward with opting out, depending on the state, those with larger poor population and sick could overall have a negative affect. Living in what is clearly a Replublican lead state and having a sizeable portion of the population along with number of low income residents, really concerns me. Even if neighboring states would create a regional co-op to negotiate lower rates, it would be safe to say that in the South and West, there is the make up of a majority of low income families and could be at a disadvantage when negotiating with providers. I vote against such an 'opt-out' proposal and that every individual has a right to a national public plan and not to provide states legislation's such an option.