(AP Photo/Charles Dharapak)
Related Articles
I received an email from John Cahill of Nevada Outdoor Democrats. He wanted me to know about an amendment to the health care bill offered by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid that would seem to put to rest some of the claims being made that gun owners will be targeted.
The amendment says that nothing in the bill requires people to disclose whether they own a gun and gun ownership cannot be factored into premiums or coverage decisions.
Here's the amendment, and here's the relevant section:
(c) PROTECTION OF SECOND AMENDMENT GUN RIGHTS.— ‘‘(1) WELLNESS AND PREVENTION PRO- GRAMS.—A wellness and health promotion activity implemented under subsection (a)(1)(D) may not re- quire the disclosure or collection of any information relating to— ‘‘(A) the presence or storage of a lawfully- possessed firearm or ammunition in the resi- dence 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 orBAI09R08 S.L.C. 6 an amendment made by that Act shall be construed to authorize or may be used for the collection of any information relating to— ‘‘(A) the lawful ownership or possession of a firearm or ammunition; ‘‘(B) the lawful use of a firearm or ammu- nition; or ‘‘(C) the lawful storage of a firearm or am- munition. ‘‘(3) LIMITATION ON DATABASES OR DATA BANKS.—None of the authorities provided to the Secretary under the Patient Protection and Afford- able 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 posses- sion of a firearm or ammunition. ‘‘(4) LIMITATION ON DETERMINATION OF PRE- MIUM RATES OR ELIGIBILITY FOR HEALTH INSUR- ANCE.—A premium rate may not be increased, health insurance coverage may not be denied, and a discount, rebate, or reward offered for participation in a wellness program may not be reduced or with- held under any health benefit plan issued pursuant to or in accordance with the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act or an amendment made by that Act on the basis of, or on reliance upon— ‘‘(A) the lawful ownership or possession of a firearm or ammunition; or ‘‘(B) the lawful use or storage of a firearm or ammunition. ‘‘(5) LIMITATION ON DATA COLLECTION RE- QUIREMENTS FOR INDIVIDUALS.—No individual shall be required to disclose any information under any data collection activity authorized under the Pa- tient Protection and Affordable Care Act or an amendment made by that Act relating to— ‘‘(A) the lawful ownership or possession of a firearm or ammunition; or ‘‘(B) the lawful use, possession, or storage of a firearm or ammunition.’’.
Does this put our concerns to rest? Not for me. It actually creates new ones.
First off, if Reid wasn't shoving this force-backed, tyrannical wealth-redistributing, power-grabbing, non-Constitutionally-delegated monstrosity down our throats, we wouldn't "need no stinking" exception clause. This, to me, is like a rapist assuring us he'll use lubrication.
The other thing that strikes me is use of the term "lawful" when it comes to ownership, possession, use and storage of firearms and ammunition. This seems to create a powerful new club for the feds to wield when it comes to enforcement of local edicts--a way they can bolster the gun-backed disarmament efforts of prohibitionists in places like Daley's Chicago or Bloomberg's New York City. And not just for people who defy them out of principle or need, but also for those who may unwittingly violate any of the thousands of "gun control" edicts" imposed in different jurisdictions throughout the land--and who may not have the knowledge or the resources to put up a defense instead of opting for the seeming "easy out" of a plea.
So I'm sorry, Mr. Cahill, I'm just not viewing this as a big positive for gun owners. But feel free to engage in comments and tell me why my fears are baseless. And if you have any influence with your candidate, you might ask him why he won't answer my questionnaire.
Comments
The mere mention of gun or guns in a health care bill should raise a red flag when it is mentioned in the proposed law. There is no valid reason for a discussion of guns in the new health bill unless there is an attempt to somehow ban them through or by health care issues. And does this term "lawful" have the same meaning as "lawful" in other existing laws governing guns in the nation and various states or is it more restrictive, more open to indidual interpretation (see Bloomberg for off the wall versions in my opinion), or does it create a whole new series of problems? Why not drop any reference to weapons or anything that could be used to demand information about weapons from the bill and be done with it? The fact they want to amend adn amend again means they want that language in there for some future purpose. Be careful of snake oil salesmen as my old friends used to say. They all seem to have found a home in Congress.
I can't be the only one who remembers the CDC proposing to study gunshot as a disease. They didn't back off until congress defunded CDC by the amount the proposed study was projected to cost and prohibited any cost shifting to "backdoor" fund it. Those steps were recently recinded by the Obama "I'll never take your guns away" administration. Washington DC is becoming the land of the "Uberweasels." George Orwell's dates were just a little off in "1984".
DDS, I discussed that in my Aug 19 post "OSHA pick Michaels will use 'public health' scheme to 'regulate' guns."
David,
In case I haven't mentioned it before, you are doing one heck of a job putting this stuff out there where people can become educated about what our "keepers" are up to. I, for one, certainly appreciate your efforts.
They go to such lengths to make their statement - why? It isn't common practice to ask if you own a tractor (lots of injuries and accidental deaths from tractors), a chicken or a turtle (people get sick from not washing their hands), a car (talk about an appliance that regularly kills and maims people), or a Martian souvenir space rocket (but I want one).
What is important to note is that the amendment didn't forbid using the "no fly" list. Attempts have already been made to link the gun sale background check to the anonymous (can you say, "pay the nice Congressman or else?") no-fly list. You know, that list that it violates national security (or at least someone's flaming job) to describe how a name gets on the list, there is no procedure (unless you are a sitting Senator) for getting your name off that list, and oh, by the way, you don't get back the ticket price you paid to find out that you are on their very, very black no-fly list.
That wasn't in the amendment.
Hmmmm... The second amendment is plainly worded and they ignore that too.
They ignore the debt limit, 9th amendment, 10th amendment...
They enforce what's convenient and ignore all else.
Why should we think this should be any different?
Thanks for the mention David.
Health insurance reform will happen and should happen. Today's bill cuts the deficit by $130 billion in the first ten years and an estimated $650 billion in the second ten years. It's about time insurance companies gave up the profit from denying care to Americans and it's time taxpayers got relief from paying for basic health care delivered at emergency rooms.
The amendment that passed today strengthens Medicare by offering free preventive services like mammograms and immediately reduces the cost of prescription drugs by shrinking the Medicare "donut hole".
It immediately expands a small business tax credit by $12 billion, which can help 24,000 Nevada small businesses offer coverage to employees.
It eliminates pre-existing conditions, (that's personal as my family includes cancer survivors) it bans price gougers from the Exchange, and forces insurance companies to spend more money on care and suck off less profit. It's long overdue.
To NVJJC:
Please direct me to that portion of the U.S. Constitution which authorizes Congress to impose itself into the business dealings of private healthcare companies, while forcing the sovereign citizens of these United States to accept such a mandate under penalty of law.
It all sounds good on paper, until you can't see your doctor because every kid in town with a runny nose is ahead of you in the office because its "free".
Net corporate profits in the USA run in the neighborhood of 8%, but for those cruel, greedy insurance companys its only about a third of that. The proposed plan will "reduce" private insurance coverage right out of America. No place in the Constitution does it give the government the power to drive a legal industry out of business. Yet the Obama administration wants to do just that with coal-fired electrical generators and private health care insurance providers. Can the firearms industry be far behind on his target list?
I want my freedom and independence.
I want freedom from fear! I want independence from hunger!
I want the Government to be my doctor! I want Government to be my banker! I want it to be my milk cow, my nanny, my teacher, my Daddy and my G...uhmmm...
Yeah, and like that!
I mean... uhmmm! Don't you care about people who NEED?
When all is said and done, all politicians assume they can convince us that there actually IS a way to pick up a turd by the "clean end."
Note the tone in the post by NVJJC. "Health insurance reform WILL happen." Ja wohl! Never mind the will of the 'American people'.
The 'American people' stopped German fascism. So, too, will they excise the cancer of American fascism. Problem is, at what price? Do you think NVJJC is willing to pay it? He will!
NVJJC, you're to die for. Or die of. Put on that rouge, and plenty of it, because you're a whore of the all-powerful state. When this country erupts into gunfire, from one end to the other, maybe you'll begin to understand, THAT WE DON'T WANT THIS REFORM. But please, remain seated on that high horse, and watch what happens, smartguy.
None of this matters anymore. When queried by Judge Andrew Napolitano, Sen. McCluskey (not sure of spelling) said, "Most of what Congress does is unconstitutional, but we do it anyway." So much for their oath of office. And you'll find this sentiment deeply rooted in both parties.
This is the first question. If you can't answer this question you have no business asking the next one. If it is constitutional, show me. If it isn't then you have to change the constitution. There is a process for that.
"To NVJJC:
Please direct me to that portion of the U.S. Constitution which authorizes Congress to impose itself into the business dealings of private healthcare companies, while forcing the sovereign citizens of these United States to accept such a mandate under penalty of law." -leemcgee
David I’m confused GOA said all along that gun control was in the health care bill but the NRA put out a press release that said there was NO gun control in the health care bill.
Now were told that an amendment was added to guarantee no gun control will be in the health care bill, provided it’s law-abiding.
Doesn’t this mean there is a small amount of gun control in the bill or the door is open to gun control?
Let’s look at the past 2 weeks.
The media says Copenhagen was a failure but they signed an agreement that laid the foundation for global government and future agreements.
The supreme court says we can be declared an enemy combatant and the new Amtrak law says gun owners should be put in a box.
David what are we to believe? It sounds like were getting a royal reaming
If guns owners have no worry about anything anti-gun, then why is there anything about guns written into this health care bill to begin with? What do guns and health care have to do with each other? Looks like the ol proverbial camel has gotten its nose under the ol proverbian tent to me!
I am simply amazed at how many people proclaim their anger about the things going on in Washington, most being the same people that refuse to vote third party believing it is "wasting a vote". You are obviously not angry enough, and we will all have to suffer a great deal more until you finally have had enough to vote "for" someone instead of "against" someone.
Insanity is stated as doing the same thing and expecting a different result. We have voted for democrats and republicans for over 100 years and keep getting the same thing.
With so many third parties to choose from and a few being exemplary in defending constitutional principles, it is foolish to continue on with the republicrats.
Our forefathers told us we would have to do this, and gave us the ability to do so without bloodshed. Never has there been a better time than now.
radnex seems to be confused about why some folks choose not to vote. Voting is a good thing, providing you can find a candidate ethical enough to follow up on his oath of office, that is, to remain within the confines of the state, local or federal constitution.
To vote for a candidate who not will uphold his oath is to waste a vote. Voting for a candidate who will not uphold his oath is to vote for a traitor, and in my mind, is itself an act of treason.
On topic, some seem to have missed the point. Recently, our masters have attempted to define gunshot wounds as a health hazard--an attempt to define the results of self-defense as a type of disease. Whereupon they seek to eliminate the possession of the tools for self-defense through OSHA or 'healthcare' legislation--an act of treason in itself.
To Elmer Fudd, I mean NVJJC:
Health "reform" will not happen. They can pass it ten times and put it on Obamao's desk ten times, makes no difference. If they want to ignore the law, so can we.
Sic semper tyrannis. The American insurgency will make the mid east ones look like a walk in the park.
David Codrea, my first reaction after reading the amendment you cited was the same as yours. I too, was struck by the number of times the word "lawful" was used in regarding guns. We already have hoplophobic mayors like Bloomberg, Nagin and Fenty who feel that all guns not used by the police and military are illegal. Nagin even said that the Second Amendment does not apply in New Orleans.
Heck, I can even see gun owners in big cities being denied health care, unless they get rid of their guns; because some mayor, sheriff or judge has declared guns to be "Illegal".
That's frightening.
Let me get this straight. This monsterous health care bill was concieved in secret, behind closed doors in both the House, Senate and White House. We are to believe that the words supposedly protecting the Second Amendment, (which most of us know the neo-marxist legislators hate to recognize), will survive another behind closed door, held in secret meetings in the hallowed halls of government?
NVJJC
You need to move to Communist Cuba where such items are provided. Here we are supposed to have freedom to earn and pay for our needs.
once the non-contributing receivers are 51% of the population we are done as a free country. They will simply vote more payments for their from the contributing class. I need food, you have some, so therefore you must provide it for me. I need health care, you have some therefore you must provide it for me.
@Rich
The 51% happened years ago.
They have so many people feeling dependent they will no lose until they bring the house down on themselves. Republicans just as bad as dems.
that ammendment wont matter because the fines written into the HC bill , make those that do not submit automatic felons , and we know felons cant legally own guns right?
The youth vote may be here to stay - ScienceDaily (Dec. 18, 2009) — An overwhelming majority -- 88 percent -- of young adults across the political spectrum think it is important for Congress and the President to pass health reform legislation that would assure affordable health insurance for all and improve health care, according to a Commonwealth Fund survey released December 18.
Rich - these guys are not commies - Health Care Costs Put U.S. Workers at Significant Disadvantage Compared with Global Competitors
WASHINGTON, D.C. – Business Roundtable, an association of chief executive officers whose companies provide health care for more than 35 million Americans, today released the first annual Business Roundtable Health Care Value Comparability Study, which shows that the costs and performance of the U.S. health care system have put America?s companies and workers at a significant competitive disadvantage in the global marketplace.
“Health care costs are one of the top cost pressures facing American businesses today, inhibiting job creation and hurting America?s ability to compete in global markets,” said Harold McGraw III, Chairman of Business Roundtable and Chairman, President and CEO McGraw-Hill Companies. “This study helps us understand the relationship between spending, quality and competitiveness, ... as we push forward with health care reform.
NVJCC -- I'm somewhat disappointed by the number of young Obamabots that went to the polls for the first time in 2008. Whether they will repeat in 2010 or 2012 remains to be seen. But I would like to remind you of the old saying "A young man who is not a liberal has no heart. An old man who is not a conservative has no brain". Or as they sometimes say, "A conservative is a liberal who has been mugged a few times." As a former SDS student activist, now a staunch conservative, I think I can say the young just might surprise you.
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!