Paul Hsieh

 

The May 7, 2013 online edition of Forbes published my latest OpEd, “Why 3D-Printed Untraceable Guns Could Be Good For America“.

Here is the opening:

In the past few days, Forbes writer Andy Greenberg broke a pair of dramatic stories on Cody Wilson’s quest to build an untraceable plastic gun using commercially available 3D-printing technology. First, Greenberg published exclusive photos of the completed firearm, then he reported on a successful test firing of a live .380 cartridge.

Although the technology is still in its infancy, Wilson’s innovation has already sparked heated debate. Some gun rights advocates (including Wilson) argue this means current gun laws will soon be obsolete. They welcome the fact that home hobbyists may soon be able to build functioning firearms without any background check or government record. Others are alarmed, concerned that this would enable criminals to more easily obtain firearms. Congressman Steve Israel has already stated his intent to modify current laws to ban such guns.

However, Congressman Israel may be too late. Once thousands of motivated hobbyists start downloading open source gun designs and posting their refinements, we’ll likely see rapid technical advances. But Cody Wilson’s real impact on America may not be technological but political — and in a good way…

(Read the full text of “Why 3D-Printed Untraceable Guns Could Be Good For America“.)


Share This Post

May 062013
 

Dr. Beth Haynes of the Benjamin Rush Society has a nice OpEd in the Huffington Post, “Almost All Americans Lack Health Insurance“.

She adds much-needed conceptual clarity in the discussion over health policy by discussing the nature of genuine insurance, as opposed to our current system. From her piece:

What is insurance? Think about your auto, life and homeowner’s insurance. Each of these is designed as a means to pay for unexpected, unpredictable, very expensive occurrences outside of the control of the policyholder. Insurance is a means of financially protecting people from the risk of unlikely but high-cost events. To build up sufficient funds, the insured pays a premium calculated on their specific chance of experiencing a covered event. Insurance companies can only stay solvent if what they take in as premiums is greater than what they pay out in claims (plus business expenses and a competitive profit).

So what is it we have that we call health insurance but isn’t? We have the prepayment of medical expenses. We expect our “insurance” to cover predictable, relatively inexpensive events like health maintenance checks, minor illnesses and injuries — and to pay for them with minimal out of pocket spending. Under Obamacare, these expectations will be mandated by law. The new law actually makes it illegal for insurance companies to charge individuals premiums equal to their risk of making claims. It’s like having a law requiring homeowner’s insurance to pay for lawn care, house painting and water heater replacement, while at the same time prohibiting the companies from operating an actuarially sound business.

Instead of genuine insurance, we are moving towards a system of bad pre-paid care.

For more details, read the full text of “Almost All Americans Lack Health Insurance“.

And by the way, under Dr. Haynes’ leadership, the Benjamin Rush Society has been sponsoring an excellent series of debates on important health policy issues. Go check out their website for details and videos!


Share This Post

 

Forbes has published my latest OpEd, “Big Brother Has A New Face, And It’s Your Boss“.

I discuss how government policies linking employment to health insurance create a powerful incentive for your boss to control his costs by controlling your lifestyle.

My take home point:

…[I]t’s wrong for the government to use economic carrots and sticks to induce private employers to become enforcers of healthy behavior. This is just a subtler form of “nanny state” controls, such as NYC mayor Michael Bloomberg outlawing soft drinks he considers unhealthy.

And once employers start monitoring employee behavior on the grounds of “health costs,” there’s no end to the potential meddling. Who will be the next politically disfavored group after smokers or the obese? Do we want bosses discouraging their employees from owning guns or enjoying mountain biking on the weekends? This is a dangerous road.

(Read the full text of “Big Brother Has A New Face, And It’s Your Boss“.)

Update from Diana: This column was published last Thursday, and it’s gotten over 47,000 views! Way to go, Paul!


Share This Post

 

Forbes published my latest OpEd, “Is Concierge Medicine The Correct Choice For You?

I discuss the benefits of this practice model for both patients and doctors as well as dispelling some myths.

(Some of this material is drawn from my recent SnowCon 2013 talk, “Concierge Medicine: The Last Bastion of Health Care Freedom”).

Denver-area readers might also be interested in this related recent short piece in 5280 Magazine: “The Doctor Is (Always) In“.


Share This Post

Mar 012013
 

Forbes published my latest OpEd, “Freedom, Not Fertility, Is The Key To A Thriving Economy” (2/27/2013).

I respond to some conservatives fretting about America’s low birth rate, and discuss why it’s not the government’s job to promote any specific lifestyle (e.g., single vs married or childless vs. multiple-child marriage).


Share This Post

Colorado Governor Wavering On New Gun Laws

 Posted by on 23 February 2013 at 10:00 am  Activism, Colorado, Firearms, Politics
Feb 232013
 

CO Governor Hickenlooper is now wavering on some of the proposed new gun laws, in part due to the threat of Magpul Industries to leave the state if they pass and because of insensitive comments made by Democrats about women and rape that have made national news.

This is the perfect time for Colorado residents to contact his office and register an “AGAINST” position on the various gun bills.

Go to Contact the Governor. Then on the “Jurisdiction” dropdown menu, select “Legislation”. On the “Bill” dropdown menu, select the various gun laws up for consideration. You can then select “AGAINST” in the “For/Against” menu and leave a comment. (You also have to indicate your name, address, etc.)

I’ve already submitted my “AGAINST” comments. Comments don’t have to be long, because they’re mostly just tallying for/against. But I said the following:

On HB13-1224 (magazine restrictions): “If law enforcement officials might need more than 15 rounds to protect themselves and other innocent people, so might homeowners faced with multiple intruders.”

On HB13-1226 (concealed carry on college campus): “Experience from Colorado State University shows that concealed weapons holders can be responsible. Please don’t disarm women who the state of CO has already agreed are fit to carry a handgun for self-protection.”

Update from Diana: Here’s the text of the two emails that I just submitted to Governor Hickenlooper. Feel free to make use of them in crafting your own emails.

Please VETO HB13-1224

Please veto this bill. Just as law enforcement might need larger-capacity magazines, so might concealed-carry permit holders and people defending their homes against criminals.

This law is nothing but security theater, and it would not do anything to prevent mass shootings. Most people in Colorado know that. They support the right to self-defense, and they won’t support politicians who forcibly disarm law-abiding citizens.

Please VETO HB13-1226

Please support the right to self-defense on campus by vetoing this bill. Here’s what I wrote about it on my blog earlier this week:

When I was a graduate student at CU Boulder, I had to walk a few blocks off-campus, through a residential neighborhood, to get to my car. I took classes in the evening on occasion, and during those times, my walk was dark and lonely. Like other students, I’d receive periodic reports of sexual assaults just off-campus, and that worried me.

The police chief’s advice of carrying a “safety whistle” was pure absurdity to me. If I was attacked, that wouldn’t do me a lick of good. Also, I knew that I couldn’t hope to outrun my attacker: I’m a slow sprinter, and even in elementary school, I only ever beat the fat girl in running the 50-yard dash. Really, I wanted my “safety Ruger” — because that could have actually kept me safe! Instead, I often took Kate, my German Shepherd with me to those late classes. She probably wouldn’t have helped much if I’d been attacked, but she might have deterred a criminal.

Moreover, in the wake of school shootings, I hated to think of being disarmed and defenseless, particularly as a teacher in a classroom full of terrified students. I’d have an obligation to protect my students as best as I could, yet I’d be unable to do much of anything. I hated that with a passion.

***

Again, please support the right of people on campus to defend themselves. This laws will not prevent shooting on campus. It will only prevent the victims from defending themselves.


Share This Post

Feb 212013
 

PJ Media has published my latest OpEd, “Would New Gun Laws Spark Widespread Civil Disobedience?” (2/17/2013). I discuss why the gun issue could be so unusually volatile.

Here is the opening:

In his State of the Union address, President Obama doubled down on his gun-control proposals, again demanding that Congress ban so-called “assault weapons” and “high capacity magazines.” This is not a surprise. What has been a surprise are the increasingly open calls for defiance from gun owners, state legislatures, and local law enforcement. If the president’s proposals become law, he may move the country into turbulent waters we haven’t seen in many years.

Gun control has long been a controversial issue in American politics. However, there are three aspects to this issue that make this more volatile than other hot topics such as taxes, foreign policy, or abortion…

(For the rest, read the full piece: “Would New Gun Laws Spark Widespread Civil Disobedience?“, 2/17/2013)


Share This Post

 

PJ Media has published my recent interview with my friend Ryan Moore:

“‘Carrying a Gun Saved My Life’: Meet Ryan Moore” http://pjmedia.com/blog/carrying-a-gun-saved-my-life-meet-ryan-moore/?singlepage=true

He talks about the time he needed to use his firearm in self-defense, what he learned from the experience, and what he thinks of proposed restrictions on gun magazines and so-called “assault weapons”.  Ryan offers an important perspective for anyone interested in the gun rights debate.

The interview has already gotten a nice Instapundit citation: http://pjmedia.com/instapundit/162482/


Share This Post

Letter to My US Senators on Proposed Gun Laws

 Posted by on 25 January 2013 at 10:00 am  Activism, Firearms, Politics
Jan 252013
 

I just sent e-mails to my two US senators opposing the proposed “assault weapons” ban.  I’ve included the text of my letter below, and others are welcome to adapt it for their own use.

You can contact your Senators using the link below.  (Most of them have a link on their websites to submit an e-mail.  Ours included drop down menus for topics, including “2nd Amendment”):

http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm?OrderBy=state&Sort=ASC

My letter wasn’t super-polished, but I just wanted to hit a few key points:

Dear Senator [FILL IN NAME]:

I am a law-abiding Coloradan, a doctor, and a gun owner.  I’m also a swing voter who has voted for both Democrats and Republicans in the past few elections.

I’m writing to express my extreme opposition to Senator Feinstein’s proposed new “assault weapons ban”.  The guns she is trying to outlaw have legitimate uses for sporting and self-defense purposes.  Plus, the AR-15 platform and some of the affected features (such as the pistol grip) make it very ergonomic for shooters with less upper body strength (e.g., women), or older shooters with arthritis.  Outlawing such weapons would impose a disproportionate burden on such shooters.

Similarly, outlawing magazines with greater than 10-round capacity handicaps victims who may be caught by surprise by multiple attackers.

Finally, universal background checks are unnecessary and burdensome to honest citizens.  If one law-abiding citizen sells his used rifle to another, there is no victim and no harm.

Northeastern University criminology professor James Fox recently noted, “Most mass murderers do not have criminal records or a history of psychiatric hospitalization. They would not be disqualified from purchasing their weapons legally.”

Newtown killer Adam Lanza stole his mother’s guns — which would not have been prevented by a background check. Mandatory ID checks of law-abiding customers purchasing Sudafed in their local pharmacies have not stopped illegal meth labs. Similarly, mandatory background checks for private firearms purchases merely impose unnecessary new burdens on the law-abiding, but will not stop the bad guys.

I oppose every major provision of Senator Feinstein’s bill.  I’m writing to urge you to oppose the bill as well.

Paul Hsieh, MD Sedalia, CO

Hope others find this helpful!


Share This Post

 

Forbes has just published my latest OpEd, “Why Doctors Should Not Ask Their Patients About Guns“.

My theme is that physicians should not routinely ask patients whether they own guns, because it could compromise the integrity of the doctor-patient relationship.

Here is the opening:

Should doctors ask patients if they own guns? Currently, ObamaCare bans the federal government from using patient medical records to compile a list of gun owners. But following the Newtown, CT shootings, President Obama issued an executive order clarifying that “the Affordable Care Act [ObamaCare] does not prohibit doctors asking their patients about guns in their homes.” The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) similarly encourages physicians to ask patients if they own firearms — in the name of protecting child safety.

As a physician, I consider this advice misguided. Instead, physicians should not routinely ask patients whether they own guns, because it could compromise the integrity of the doctor-patient relationship.

I cite Dave Kopel (who was one of many scholars who debunked the standard 43-to-1 flawed statistic about the danger of guns in the house) and also discuss the little-recognized fact that swimming pools are far more dangerous to kids than guns, yet no one asks for background checks for pool owners.

And many thanks to Dr. Matthew Bowdish for permission to quote him at the end of the piece!

(Read the full text of “Why Doctors Should Not Ask Their Patients About Guns“.)


Share This Post

Suffusion theme by Sayontan Sinha