Medicare to Cover Prescription Handguns?

This is a joke, right?

Why do you think it's a joke? The disabled and/or elderly have just as much right to self-defense as anybody else! I think this is a fantastic product and a great bit of news, I just wish they could find some way to make it a repeater rather than just a single-shot.

Ummm, it doesn't look very safe, it looks like you "pull the trigger" by squeezing it with your whole hand....isn't that how you would also pick it up?

Maybe I'm missing something, but since when do people need a prescription to get a gun? If the manufacturer wants to sell them to old or disabled people, that's fine with me, but what's the point of the prescription?

As someone with limited strength this would be a godsend for me. Those of us who are disabled are especially vulnerable to attack and have limited or no ability to defend ourselves conventionally. My only reservations with this are (a) its single-fire limitation and (b) its appearance. It's so odd looking that brandishing it is hardly going to be a visual deterrent. I have visions of me explaining to a would-be attacker that no, really, it IS a handgun...

The reason for the medical device classification and prescription is the fact that the person getting it would not have to pay for it, or get it at a reduced cost through medicare.

mix emotions about the pistol in general. However, if we should respond to an attacker... God save us both...! It must be other wasys to stop crimes that don't end blowing away human lives.
The chair is very ingenuous!!! As a designer, my chair's logic had to roll on three equidistant wheels mounted in a sinle axel. The two wheel machine walker didn't exist during my design days...
My congratulations to the spark of genius!

Its a fine idea as a weapon, but I don't think medicare should pay for it. It is NOT a medical device. I don't think taxes should pay for firearms for private citizens.

The elderly and physically disadvantaged have the same rights under the constitution as do young and/or able-bodied citizens, to defend ourselves. We have the right to bear arms. We also have the responsibility for our actions if we choose (or have no other alternative) to defend ourselves.

The government does not pay for guns for its citizens (other than for police and military) and should not pay for this "medical device" through Medicare.

If one chooses to own a gun, they should legally buy it. If one chooses to own this medical device, they should legally buy it.

With all of the abuses in our health-care industry, Medicare has no business entering into gun sales.

Would it not violate the Hippocratic Oath for a doctor to prescribe this?

From Wikipedia's Hippocratic Oath write-up:
"... I will not give a lethal drug to anyone if I am asked, nor will I advise such a plan ..."

Doctors aren't required to follow the Hyppocratic Oath (which makes it quite ironic that hippocratic sounds so much like hypocrite). If they were then they would not be allowed to refuse treatment due to lack of insurance, since one of the parts of the oath is "To keep the good of the patient as the highest priority." The fact is, doctors go against this oath all the time, so if they did in this case as well it wouldn't really make much difference.

why not make tasers available through medicare then? or harpoon guns? or sharp sticks, pitchforks, supersoakers you could fill with hot oil or acid, whatever else a person has ever used to harm another person?
from another perspective: you could also argue that providing this to the elderly makes them relatively more capable to defend themselves than the average citizen, that therefore the average citizen is actually less able to defend himself, and should therefore be eligible to receive some kind of armed protection at the government's expense.
that medicare approved this thing is mindbogglingly idiotic.

Cute, but completely illegal. Under the 1934 National Firearms Act it's a "lemon squeezer gun". It's a felony to possess without a Class I Federal Firearms License

Smith & Wesson Lemon Squeezers are just another variety of revolvers. They're completely legal and there's nothing unusual about them.
Just because this thing looks like a lemon being squeezed has nothing to do with anything.

Thie Chicago palm pistol was a repeater..... this new thing is old techniology and inferior to the original.

http://www.nfa.ca/content/view/106/197/

Dan Gambiera, if you look on the palm pistol website (http://palmpistol.com/) you can find what is apparently a letter from the ATF stating that the palm pistol is just a normal pistol, legally.

"Cute, but completely illegal. Under the 1934 National Firearms Act it's a "lemon squeezer gun". It's a felony to possess without a Class I Federal Firearms License"

Nope and nope.

First, under the NFA it would be classed as "Any Other Weapon". Second, the designer went to great pains to design it around ATF's definition of "any other weapon," so that they classified it as an ordinary handgun.

Second, there is no such animal as a "Class I Federal Firearms License".

Individual owners do not need any license under the NFA to buy Title II weapons. The purchase and sale of NFA weapons is, however, heavily taxed and regulated.

Hey - where's the sights?

Hey - where's the sights?

Shades of the Liberator? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FP-45_Liberator

presuming this makes it as a prescription medical device, will the TSA allow them on planes like they do other prescription medical devices?

and whats the deal w/ "daily use" ... I'm presuming the device is prescription, but the ammo is not.

"Hey - where's the sights? "

It has a laser sight.

I'm guessing that the prescription and insurance part is to reduce the cost down to that of a normal handgun.

Hopefully, insurance companies with tell the maker to go away, its a nice device, but they should lower the prices to that of a normal handgun on their own.

I agree with the gun in principal, where the elderly and people with disabilities have a right to defend themselves, but it should not be considered a medical device, since the purpose of a weapon is to harm/kill another person. Will Medicare cover the costs of the person shot with one of these also?
Only in America!

sweet! more guns! that should solve all our problems now.

I say if Medicare reimburses scooters, it should reimburse self-defense items like Palm Pistol.

metoo said "why not make tasers available through medicare then? or harpoon guns? or sharp sticks, pitchforks, supersoakers you could fill with hot oil or acid, whatever else a person has ever used to harm another person?"

I am disabled and I need a car, will Medicare pay for one for me?

Are you kidding me?! We all have a right to own and PURCHASE a lot of things. This is a medical device? While I understand the reasoning behind the design (whether I agree with it or not), if anyone else wants a gun, they need to buy a gun. They should all go through proper licensing procedures. "Equality" means EQUAL, not preferencial. This is ridiculous.

And, before anyone asks, I am physically disabled. So, yes, I DO know what it's like. There is still zero excuse for this.

Do any of you guys know why you Americans have been given the right to purchase handguns? It was not because the founding fathers thought that people should be able to defend themselves against other people, it was because the founding fathers thought that THE people should be able to defend themselves against the state, in case where the state turned corrupt and started to exploit the free people of the United States of America. The guns were required to uphold the democracy through a rebellion, not so you should be able to exact swift justice to a robber who was unlucky enough to get caught.

Since guns no longer are required to uphold the democracy, I propose that you quell your blood-thirst and reflect a bit upon your cowboyish demeanor - free marked capitalism is not a part of your constitution.

And yes - I am a communist.

oh man.. this is just GRAND... arthritic criminals will now be able to get their hands on a gun.....:)

Come and live in ENGLAND - you are not allowed any guns knives or even a sharp stick if the police think it could be used as a weapon.

As a Class I medical device, the gun can be carried on commercial airline flights.

Doctors should consider the single shot as a limitation on their patients, and prescribe one for each hand.

Even the weakest of victims can then have a dangerous left-right combination!

I just LOVE the idea of some cruisin' troublemakin' dork trying to intimidate and rob a lady in a wheelchair and looking this in the eye instead.

The company lost the medical 'device' designation today. See the update on the Product Specification page: http://www.palmpistol.com/PalmPistolSpecification.pdf

Since guns no longer are required to uphold the democracy, I propose that you quell your blood-thirst and reflect a bit upon your cowboyish demeanor - free marked capitalism is not a part of your constitution.

And yes - I am a communist.

1. Really? The second amendment is quite clearly to
secure Freedom, not democracy. As deTouqeville pointed out, democracy
can come in more than one variety, particularly his "grey democracy", which in fact was an early
description of the monstrous brand otherwise called communism.

2. Self defense is not "blood thirst" and your assinine characterization of it as such goes precisely to your lack of perception or simple self-absorption. It is a fact (DOJ) that individuals accidentally hurt or kill only about half the number of individuals as police, who in your communist wonderland would be the only responders with sufficent force to prevent serious attacks against even non-disabled persons.

3. You're a troll. Go back and eat the agae off the walls of your marxist crypt.

Since guns no longer are required to uphold the democracy, I propose that you quell your blood-thirst and reflect a bit upon your cowboyish demeanor - free marked capitalism is not a part of your constitution.

And yes - I am a communist.

1. Really? The second amendment is quite clearly to
secure Freedom, not democracy. As deTouqeville pointed out, democracy
can come in more than one variety, particularly his "grey democracy", which in fact was an early
description of the monstrous brand otherwise called communism.

2. Self defense is not "blood thirst" and your assinine characterization of it as such goes precisely to your lack of perception or simple self-absorption. It is a fact (DOJ) that individuals accidentally hurt or kill only about half the number of individuals as police, who in your communist wonderland would be the only responders with sufficent force to prevent serious attacks against even non-disabled persons.

3. You're a troll. Go back and eat the agae off the walls of your marxist crypt.

Since guns no longer are required to uphold the democracy, I propose that you quell your blood-thirst and reflect a bit upon your cowboyish demeanor - free marked capitalism is not a part of your constitution.

And yes - I am a communist.

1. Really? The second amendment is quite clearly to
secure Freedom, not democracy. As deTouqeville pointed out, democracy
can come in more than one variety, particularly his "grey democracy", which in fact was an early
description of the monstrous pseudodemocracy otherwise called communism.

2. Self defense is not "blood thirst" and your assinine characterization of it as such goes precisely to your lack of perception or simple self-absorption. It is a fact (DOJ) that individuals accidentally hurt or kill only about half the number of individuals as police, who in your communist wonderland would be the only responders with sufficent force to prevent serious attacks against even non-disabled persons.

3. You're a troll. Go back and eat the agae off the walls of your marxist crypt.

No way. Bought grandaddy an Uzi.

Would it not violate the Hippocratic Oath for a doctor to prescribe this?

Lots of things that are routine in modern medicine actually violate the text of the oath, while this doesn't. The oath isn't actually required of American doctors, and so is irrelevant.

Do any of you guys know why you Americans have been given the right to purchase handguns? It was not because the founding fathers thought that people should be able to defend themselves against other people, it was because the founding fathers thought that THE people should be able to defend themselves against the state,

Have you ever read Hobbes? Blackstone? The works of the revolutionary generation?

If you had, you'd know the right of personal self-defense against other people was explicitly considered part of the inalienable rights of men in general and free Englishmen in particular in America at the end of the 18th Century. And that the whole ideological program of the Revolution was to secure the colonists all the rights of men in general and of free Englishmen in particular against encroachment. Which, of course, would include the right to personal self-defense called out in Hobbes and Blackstone.

Sure, it's a "medical device". Similar to an antibiotic. It kills or injures an organism trying to hurt you. It promotes the continued health of the person possessing one. Oh, you say that the organism is a human being? And when one kills a fetus to save the life of the mother (or for a reason less sufficient than this), is that fetus not human?

Whether or not the goverment should provide such remedial apparatus, or anything else, is another question.

85 year olds with arthritis ought be allowed to carry such, even in preference to those of us who are younger and more healthy. One thing a firearm does very well: levels the playing field against well-muscled thugs.

That barrel looks an awful lot like an inhaler mouthpiece if you ask me...

I don't interpret the US constitution as saying that we have a "Right to own weapons for self-defense". The original text and the amendments are open to interpretation of course, but it makes me cringe when I see people get all excited about obtaining everything their "rights" allow them, just because it is a "right". As some others have pointed out in these comments, using a hand gun is hardly the most efficient deterrent or means of self-defense, especially when it looks like a mouth-piece for a Ventolin...

Besides, if people with motion or visual difficulties are given these "Freebies", aren't they likely to mistakenly shoot their cat, dog or goldfish, or mistake it for their Ventolin?

"Haven't you got your weapon yet? It's a right you know!"

Sorry, I don't buy it (literally). Rights always mean responsibilities, even though we tend to ignore that part...

Nicolas,

Speak for yourself especially when you say things like "Rights always mean responsibilities, even though we tend to ignore that part..." Just because you're too immature to obey your responsibilities does not mean others are like you. Its a bad mistake to assume others think and act like you do, so please don't prescribe corrections for your lifestyle onto others. You are obviously not an old person with arthritis living in rural Pennsylvania without neighbors within hearing range or a police station within 15 miles. So, you are free with your right to walk the streets unarmed and unimpeded. And the same is true for me with all my disabilities.

How would the prescription read? Use as directed for self defense?

No doctor in their right mind would ever write a prescription for this. If it is every used to cause harm, even if justified, even the densest trial lawer can trace a liability chain back to the physician. The liability risk is so great I bet malpractice insurers will have riders on their policies in place quite soon.

I'm all for specialty firearms for hadicapped or disabled folks. It's a form of discrimination to prevent them from doing what they feel reasonable to protect themselves and their families. However, the idea that taxpayer dollars be used to puchse those firearms is a little much.

I'm all for specialty firearms for hadicapped or disabled folks. It's a form of discrimination to prevent them from doing what they feel reasonable to protect themselves and their families. However, the idea that taxpayer dollars be used to puchse those firearms is a little much.