Gun Owner Rights and Obamacare - Yes It Is In The Law

[gator996]

Supressing the recording of gun related data???
The public doesn't have the right to know the data of gun related incidents?


http://www.forbes.com/sites/carolynm...is-in-the-law/



Gun Owner Rights and Obamacare - Yes It Is In The Law
Carolyn McClanahan, Contributor
Physician/Financial Planner. I discuss all things money and medicine.


One of the best methods to defuse potential violence is heartfelt conversation. By openly questioning each other in a non-judgmental manner, we can often discover a person’s pain, motives, and ability to act. Unfortunately, the gun rights lobby, mostly funded by the National Rifle Association, has time and time again inserted their hand in attempting to shut down that conversation.

In the Affordable Care Act, the gun lobby’s section is in Title X, starting on page 2,037, line 23. “Protection of Second Amendment Gun Rights” contains five provisions mostly dedicated to shutting down conversation about guns in medicine. What do these sections contain?

Wellness and prevention programs may not require the disclosure or collection of information relating to the presence or storage of a lawfully possessed firearm or the use of a firearm. At least the law didn’t say we couldn’t ask about it, we just have to do it clandestinely.

The next provision states we can’t collect data related to owning or using firearms. So we can’t write it down? Sounds like an effective way to stifle research related to gun violence so we can no longer prove that easier access to guns increases the risk of mass violence.

Provision three states we can’t use or maintain records of individual ownership or possession of firearms or ammunition. I’m fine with that not being allowed in medicine, but that information should be tracked somewhere. A person amassing an arsenal should raise an eyebrow.

Provision four limits the ability to determine rates or eligibility for health insurance based on gun ownership. Now why is that even in there? Title I of the ACA states that insurance will be guaranteed issue so no one can be turned down. Even if they own enough guns to hunt every squirrel in the United States, they will qualify for health insurance. Just so the gun owners have the correct information, rates are based on only four factors – age, location, number of family members, and smoking status. Wait – guns smoke, so maybe they thought that was meant for gun owners.

The final provision related to gun owners is that individuals do not have to disclose they own a gun. We know you can’t make people tell the truth, but fortunately most people in the throes of mental anguish and considering violence will tell the truth when asked.

In Florida last year, the legislature and governor passed a law backed by the National Rifle Association that would penalize physicians if they asked a patient about gun access and ownership except in the case of emergencies.

[Gatoragman]

You own this one, not a single pub voted for it, I guess thats what ole Nancy meant when she said you have to pass it to find out what Is in it.

[g8orbill]

Originally Posted by Gatoragman

You own this one, not a single pub voted for it, I guess thats what ole Nancy meant when she said you have to pass it to find out what Is in it.

yeppers

[gator996]

Originally Posted by Gatoragman

You own this one, not a single pub voted for it, I guess thats what ole Nancy meant when she said you have to pass it to find out what Is in it.

That's fine.

I think the author's point is who lobbied to get that in there?
Why?

You seem to acknowledge that its questionable language ("You own this one...") at best...


Any opinion on the language itself?

Any opinion on the supression of gun data? Motivation?

[Gatoragman]

I believe the language is terrible and wish it wasn't in there. But bottom line who did they lobby, who was influenced and voted for it? This is just another item of that debacle of a bill that as we learn more we will dislike. You libs were so excited to get passed that this just another piece that no one knew what they were voting for.

[Gatoragman]

And as far as the motivation, I do not know why the democrats put this in and voted for it.

[gator996]

You guys crack me up...

Its NRA language...

And it was NRA member Harry Reid who put it in there.


I don't care.
I think its pretty ridiculous that the NRA is trying to supress the data.

Where is data collection prohibited in the 2nd ammendment?

[The_Graygator]

Originally Posted by g8orbill

yeppers

Double yeppers.

All Democrat bill.

Not... one... Republican... vote.

And if as many states cotinue to say they won't have it in their states, even with the federal govt.'s threats of taking away their medicaid, Obamacare will fail (God willing).

[G8trGr8t]

and somewhere else in the thousand of pages I believe there is language that discusses doctors discussing ownership of guns with their patients so this was probably language inserted to insure that those discussions didn't turn into another backdoor way to monitor gun ownership or discourage gun ownership through higher medical insurance rates.

but that isn't mentioned in the article because like most "journalism" these days the author has an agenda and isn't interested in presenting all the facts, just the ones that support their agenda. journalism has become nothing more than advertising these days as I rarely see anythign that presents all the information about a subject.

I do know that Florida passed a law making it illegal for doctors to question patients about gun ownership and that law was declared unconstitutional. Funny how you clipped that last part off your quote.

In Florida last year, the legislature and governor passed a law backed by the National Rifle Association that would penalize physicians if they asked a patient about gun access and ownership except in the case of emergencies. Is that before or after the emergency happens? Fortunately, the law was recently ruled unconstitutional by a sane judge appointed by President Bush.