Obamacare provision forbids democrats from restricting guns and ammo

QUOTE: As for Reid’s reasons for burying a pro-gun measure into the body of the Affordable Care Act, the Majority Leader is said to have been concerned that the NRA planned to take an active position against the passage of Obamacare and decided, no doubt with the permission of Reid’s friend, NRA boss Wayne LaPierre, to head the problem off at the pass by putting language in the bill that would mollify the gun lobby.

Further, there was concern that a conspiracy theory then in circulation among right-wing circles—a meme suggesting that the Obama Administration had cleverly planted language in the ACA that could be used as a tool to get to the guns—would further erode public support for the legislation. For these reasons, Reid determined to insert some cozy language for the gun people into the Senate version of the ACA—language certain to escape public review at a time when the conversation was far more focused on hot button subjects like death panels, taxes and mandates.

For these reasons, the following language did, indeed, become a part of the nation’s controversial health care reform law:

© PROTECTION OF SECOND AMENDMENT GUN RIGHTS.—

‘‘(1) WELLNESS AND PREVENTION PROGRAMS.— A wellness and health promotion activity implemented under subsection (a)(1)(D) may not require the disclosure or collection of any information relating to—

‘‘(A) the presence or storage of a lawfully- possessed firearm or ammunition in the residence or on the property of an individual; or

‘‘(B) the lawful use, possession, or storage of a firearm or ammunition by an individual.
‘‘

(2) LIMITATION ON DATA COLLECTION.—None of the authorities provided to the Secretary under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act or an amendment made by that Act shall be construed to authorize or may be used for the collection of any in- formation relating to—

‘‘(A) the lawful ownership or possession of a firearm or ammunition;

‘‘(B) the lawful use of a firearm or ammunition; or

‘‘© the lawful storage of a firearm or ammunition.

‘‘(3) LIMITATION ON DATABASES OR DATA BANKS.—None of the authorities provided to the Secretary under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act or an amendment made by that Act shall be construed to authorize or may be used to maintain records of individual ownership or possession of a firearm or ammunition.

humanevents.com/2013/01/12/obamacare-provision-forbids-democrats-from-restricting-guns-and-ammo/

news.msn.com/rumors/rumor-obamacare-protects-gunowners-rights-2

CONFIRMED. :smiley:

Got to pass it to find out what’s in it. :stuck_out_tongue:

Confused…how does not requiring gun disclosure for healthcare reasons prevent Democrats from “restricting guns and ammo”?

Nothing in that prevents Democrats from restricting gun ownership…only that they can’t be required to disclose that they possess a gun to their doctor, psych, insurance, government agent, etc in relationship to medical treatment.

:thumbsup:

As far as that portion of the ACA that has been posted, you are correct. There restriction is limited to the Secretary and the Act and would not serve to limit Congress’ authority outside of the ACA. It is comforting to know, however, that the Dems limited one avenue from which they could have foisted gun control upon us.

You can’t use the health system to do anything with gun ownership like they wanted to do.

:thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup:

If the Constitution isn’t going to slow him down, the Affordable Care Act surely won’t.

But did they?

As I read this, it simply says that HIPAA is not to be construed as requiring disclosure by a shrink or other doctor or by an individual, to law enforecement that some mentally unbalanced person has access to a gun. Furthermore, it prevents entering mental health information into any “administrative” data bank that might be accessed in checking out a gun buyer.

Previously, as I read HIPAA, it was permissible to make such a disclosure.

So, this would, for example, have prevented Adam Lanza’s shrink (if he had one) or doctor of any sort from inquiring into whether Lanza had access to guns, or disclosing it to law enforcement if he did learn of it. It would have prevented James Holmes’ shrink from letting law enforcement know of the danger he presented, and apparently this provision or his shrink’s understanding of HIPAA, did just that. It would have prevented entering the mental record of either of them into a data base that might be used to determine whether a person who could otherwise legally own or possess a gun, was safe to have one.

So, while it would remain permissible under HIPAA for a health provider to inform law enforcement that a person is dangerous, it would not allow the provider to tell law enforcement that he/she has a gun or ask the patient whether he/she has one.

“Laws can be changed if necessary, Dumbledore” - Cornelius Fudge

No. The law in that section does not regulate health care providers. It regulates the Secretary of Health and Human Services. And even then, it’s just in relation to this law. I didn’t look up subsection (a)(1)(D), but I assume it refers to a list of incentives whereby providers get small bonuses or penalties at the end of the year if they meet certain criteria for the various incentives.

So unlike say asking patients about exercise, the HHS secretary can’t set up asking patients about guns as one of the many incentives for providers to get say a half percent Medicare bonus.

However, the law doesn’t restrict any of the secretary’s other authority. So if he can find the authority elsewhere, he’s free to set up a gun registry or whatever. The language we’re discussing was merely a guarantee that the Obamacare law itself wouldn’t expand the government’s power regarding guns.

Perhaps some legal scholar will come in here to clarify. But if one reads the text of the provision as posted, it clearly prevents providers under at least the “wellness” programs from asking about patients’ firearms and further prevents central assembly of the information in any HHS data bank.

The HHS data bank is soon to be the one central health information file nationally. There is no other that would contain mental health information on a widespread basis.

And remember that in 2016, the “incentive” for provider compliance turns into a penalty if the provider does not comply. Assembly of health information for government purposes is not a voluntary activity on the part of providers past 2016. And no matter what kind of “wellness” program providers institute in order to comply with Obamacare health information assembly requirements, the program cannot inquire into the question of whether the patient has access to firearms or not.

Yes, like I said. Now if HHS is able to obtain such information from another source, rather than the wellness programs of this law (perhaps a voluntary process could be set up, separate from the ACA and its wellness programs), I don’t see any language preventing them from compiling a database.

[quote=Ridgerunner]And remember that in 2016, the “incentive” for provider compliance turns into a penalty if the provider does not comply. Assembly of health information for government purposes is not a voluntary activity on the part of providers past 2016.
[/quote]

I don’t know that I’d say it’s no longer voluntary when it’s simply a change from +.5 to -.5 , or -1.0% etc of the base Medicare reimbursement.

[quote=Ridgerunner] And no matter what kind of “wellness” program providers institute in order to comply with Obamacare health information assembly requirements, the program cannot inquire into the question of whether the patient has access to firearms or not.
[/quote]

I think you misunderstand how the wellness provision works. I don’t pretend to know if things will continue this way as the years go on, but the present system is the CMS (Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services don’t ask where the extra “M” disappeared to) issues a list of incentive measures. For instance, here is the page listing where you can find those for physicians. There is a long list of measures on various topics. For example, measure #291 is

Parkinson’s Disease: Cognitive Impairment or Dysfunction Assessment: All patients with a diagnosis of Parkinson’s disease who were assessed for cognitive impairment or dysfunction at least annually

CMS has decided this should be the standard of care. They basically say, “Dr. Ridgerunner, you saw 115 patients that you coded as having Parkinson’s this past year. Of those, you coded that 110 had had a cognitive impairment assessment within the previous year. Since our criteria for this measure is 80%, you win! You were paid $100,000 this past year by Medicare, so now you get a bonus of $500 for meeting this measure… and since we heard you were wondering, we don’t really care whether you asked your patients about guns, or television, or eating their veggies, or how often they eat the lead paint peeling off the wall - you can ask about those things or not, we’re not keeping track.”

Not a news story

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.