I'm a big believer in trying to address the underlying causes of violent crime rather than focusing on the tools used to commit violent crime. Part of that is because I don't want anyone taking my guns away, obviously, but another part of it is that I understand that you can never take away enough tools to prevent violent people from being violent. You just can't do it.

So, in theory, I'd be all about using Medicaid funds for gun violence prevention efforts.

The thing is, I'm not.

First, I'm not sold on the idea that doctors need to bill Medicaid in order to talk to their patients about guns in the first place. They damn sure aren't billing my insurance company with some special code because they tell my fat butt to lay off the cheeseburgers, so why here?

Now, there are efforts to curtail this.

Medicaid funding allocated for gun violence prevention programs may encounter significant challenges as political divisions emerge over its use.

This controversy arises as some states have begun utilizing Medicaid for community-based interventions following President Biden’s executive orders issued last September. These measures aim to support gun control initiatives by integrating public health strategies.

The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services announced states could use Medicaid funds for counseling on “firearm safety.” Seven states, including California, Connecticut, and New York, have already enacted legislation allowing Medicaid reimbursement for such services.

Pennsylvania, however, has not passed similar legislation. Still, Lieutenant Governor Austin Davis highlighted the steep financial toll of gun violence on the state in an email to WHYY News: “The total economic costs of firearm injury in Pennsylvania are estimated to be at least $300 million annually. Costs are also borne by publicly-funded healthcare systems: over five years, more than 70% of firearm injury patients had government insurance, with Medicaid covering 65%, and costs rising from $27 million in 2016 to $59 million in 2020.” That’s according to an interim report based on Pennsylvania’s Resources for Victims of Gun Violence Initiative.

Meanwhile, opposition mounts. Congressman Andrew Clyde (GA-09) introduced the Medicaid Funds Integrity Act, seeking to block Medicaid funds from financing gun violence prevention programs.

Except they screwed up. Look at the last sentence in the second paragraph: "These measures aim to support gun control initiatives by integrating public health strategies."

They want to use our tax dollars to push gun control.

I can't imagine why anyone would have an issue with this, right? I mean, we should all love to fund an effort to strip us of our rights. That's always fun and we've never passed anything like the Dickey Amendment to try and curtail similar stuff or anything, right?

For the sarcasm-impaired, that was not to be taken seriously. I know there's one of you out there at least.

The truth of the matter is that what they want is to use taxpayer funds to advance their personal mission, which is to implement gun control. Doctors don't need to bill to talk about basic gun safety with patients much like they don't use a special code for talking about proper nutrition or the value of exercise. What this is about is trying to go beyond the basics and encourage doctors to overstep, potentially convincing a lot of people who don't know any better that guns are the problem. "I get what these gun rights groups are saying, but my doctor says..." and then vote for gun control.

And on our dime.

"But maybe they won't do that."

Maybe. I don't trust any of these people enough, though, to be comfortable with a maybe. 

You shouldn't either.