If You Really Want to Keep People Healthier and Reduce Costs, Insurance Should Give Us All Guns

Don Surber makes the case:

Providing free birth control is fine for 30-year-old law students, but what about us 58-year-old monogamists? Free birth control does nothing for my wife’s health or mine. And remember, it is all about me. And Sandra Fluke’s call too have health insurance cover transgender surgery does nothing for me either. Robert Stacy McCain has the story.

What I could use is a gun.

Nothing too expensive or flashy. A 38 would do. Same deal as The Pill. No co-payment or deductibles. Each month, I get a 30-day supply of ammo just like Miss Fluke will get with her pills. Naw, just teasing on the ammo. I’ll supply that. ...

Here’s where the health part comes in: A fellow pulls a knife on you, you pull a gun on him. He decides you are not worth attacking. I have just avoided a $10,000 trip to the emergency room and surgery. You are welcome, Blue Cross.

Surber also refers to the Maryland gun case I wrote about yesterday in which the overly restrictive handgun laws in Maryland were struck down. You can read the details here.

Of course, this whole idea is silly, but if we're going to demand that insurance companies provide us everything we need to be "healthy", why not require them to provide our food as well? After all, a leading cause of disease and death is an unhealthy diet. If Blue Cross delivers a healthy meal to our homes three times a day wouldn't we save tons of money in hospital and medication costs? You can take the argument to all kinds of extremes.