ObamaCare Could be Used to Ban Guns in Home Self-Defense

[coues7]

Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus has something to say to gun owners: "Own a gun; lose your coverage!"

 

Baucus' socialized health care bill comes up for a Finance Committee vote on Tuesday. We have waited and waited and waited for the shifty Baucus to release legislative language. But he has refused to release anything but a summary -- and we will never have a Congressional Budget Office cost assessment based on actual legislation. Even the summary was kept secret for a long time.

 

But, on the basis of the summary, the Baucus bill (which is still unnumbered) tells us virtually nothing about what kind of policy Americans will be required to purchase under penalty of law -- nor the consequences. It simply says:

 

* "all U.S. citizens and legal residents would be required to purchase coverage through (1) the individual market...";

 

* "individuals would be required to report on their federal income tax return the months for which they maintain the required minimum health coverage...";

 

* in addition to an extensive list of statutorily mandated coverage, HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius would be empowered to "define and update the categories of treatments, items, and services..." within an insurance plan which would be covered in a policy constituting "required minimum health coverage."

 

ObamaCare and gun control

 

It is nearly certain that coverage prescribed by the administration will, to control costs, exclude coverage for what it regards as excessively dangerous activities. And, given Sebelius' well-established antipathy to the Second Amendment -- she vetoed concealed carry legislation as governor of Kansas -- we presume she will define these dangerous activities to include hunting and self-defense using a firearm. It is even possible that the Obama-prescribed policy could preclude reimbursement of any kind in a household which keeps a loaded firearm for self-defense.

 

The ObamaCare bill already contains language that will punish Americans who engage in unhealthy behavior by allowing insurers to charge them higher insurance premiums. (What constitutes an unhealthy lifestyle is, of course, to be defined by legislators.) Don't be surprised if an anti-gun nut like Sebelius uses this line of thinking to impose ObamaCare policies which result in a back-door gun ban on any American who owns "dangerous" firearms.

 

After all, insurers already (and routinely) drop homeowners from their policies for owning certain types of guns or for refusing to use trigger locks (that is, for keeping their guns ready for self-defense!). While not all insurers practice this anti-gun behavior, Gun Owners of America has documented that some do -- Prudential and State Farm being two of the most well-known.

 

The good news is that because homeowner insurance is private (and is still subject to the free market) you can go to another company if one drops you. But what are you going to do under nationalized ObamaCare when the regulations written by Secretary Sebelius suspend the applicability of your government-mandated policy because of your gun ownership?

 

All of this is in addition to something that GOA has been warning you about for several months ... the certainty that minimum acceptable policies will dump your gun information into a federal database ... a certainty that is reinforced by language in the summary providing for a study to "encourage increased meaningful use of electronic health records."

 

Remember, the federal government has already denied more than 150,000 military veterans the right to own guns, without their being convicted of a crime or receiving any due process of law. They were denied because of medical information (such as PTSD) that the FBI later determined disqualified these veterans to own guns.

 

Is this what we need on a national level being applied to every gun owner in America?

 

Incidentally, failure to comply would subject the average family to $1,500 in fines -- and possibly more for a household with older teens. And, although a Schumer amendment purports to exempt Americans from prison sentences for non-purchase of an ObamaPolicy -- something which was never at issue -- it doesn't prohibit them from being sent to prison for a year and fined an additional $25,000 under the Internal Revenue Code for non-payment of the initial fines.

 

ACTION: Contact your two U.S. Senators. Ask him or her, in the strongest terms, to vote against the phony Baucus bill.

 

You can use the Gun Owners Legislative Action Center at http://www.gunowners.org/activism.htm to send your senators the pre-written e-mail message below.

 

----- Pre-written letter -----

 

Dear Senator:

 

You already know that the phony Baucus bill:

 

* Is predicated on $283 billion in phony "cuts" which have never, never ever been realized since a similar commitment to cut Medicare costs in the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 -- and will never, never ever be realized under the Baucus bill;

 

* Requires massive numbers of Americans to have government-approved insurance which the CBO predicts will be more expensive than current policies;

 

* Refuses to provide a cost for these policies, making it almost certain that more and more Americans will find insurance beyond their reach;

 

* Has no legislative language and nothing but a CBO "guesstimate" of the cost and benefits, based on a summary.

 

On the basis of the summary, the Baucus bill tells us virtually nothing about what kind of policy Americans will be required to purchase under penalty of law -- nor the consequences. It does say that the "Secretary of HHS [Kathleen Sebelius] would be required to define and update the categories of treatments, items, and services..." within an insurance plan which would be covered in a policy constituting "required minimum health coverage."

 

This could spell trouble for gun owners.

 

It is nearly certain that coverage prescribed by the administration will, to control costs, exclude coverage for what it regards as excessively dangerous activities. And, given Sebelius' well-established antipathy to the Second Amendment -- she vetoed concealed carry legislation as governor of Kansas -- I presume she will define these dangerous activities to include hunting and self-defense using a firearm. It is even possible that the Obama-prescribed policy could preclude reimbursement of any kind in a household which keeps a loaded firearm for self-defense.

 

This is, of course, in addition to the certainty that minimum acceptable policies will dump my gun information into a federal database -- a certainty that is reinforced by language in the summary providing for a study to "encourage increased meaningful use of electronic health records."

 

Incidentally, failure to comply would subject the average family to $1,500 in fines -- and possibly more for a household with older teens. And, although a Schumer amendment purports to exempt Americans from prison sentences for non-purchase of an ObamaPolicy -- something which was never at issue -- it doesn't prohibit them from being sent to prison for a year and fined an additional $25,000 under the Internal Revenue Code for non-payment of the initial fines.

 

Please oppose the Baucus bill.

 

Sincerely,

 

 

PLEASE SEE THE PINNED TOPIC AT THE TOP OF THE POLITICAL FORUM FOR LINKS TO CONTACT YOUR SENATORS AND REPRESENTATIVES

[joeybari]

wow talk about screwed

 

 

[natureboyfloyd]

Coues7,

A big thanks...

 

Keeping track of all the behind-the-scenes ways to limit me is a second job; thanks for the heads up. If we the people do not vote these folks out in the next election, in huge enough numbers to overwhelm the corrupt counting, we will all be riding solar powered bullet trains to our second and third jobs.

 

This stuff is getting ridiculous.

[az4life]

And if we are surprised at this backdoor plan, we deserve the liberals that are in office.

 

Fight these things now or we will be imprisoned for much less later.

[azpackhorse]

reply from Jon Kyle

 

Dear Mr. Fisher:

 

 

 

Thank you for contacting me regarding health care reform. I appreciate the opportunity to respond.

 

 

 

The U.S. health care system is the best in the world, spurring advancements in new medical treatments and technologies. Such innovation helps physicians treat and prevent diseases better than ever before, eradicates once fatal epidemics, and helps Americans lead longer, healthier lives.

 

 

 

Despite these advances, millions of Americans struggle to find affordable health insurance options. From 1999 to 2008, the average cost of a family health plan increased by 119 percent from $5,791 to $12,680. Meanwhile, workers' wages increased 34 percent during the same nine-year period. Ensuring access to quality, affordable health care is a laudable goal. I support targeted solutions that lower health care costs and improve health care by building upon, not completely dismantling, our health care system.

 

 

 

Unfortunately, many of the proposals being considered in the U.S. Senate will make health insurance more expensive, jeopardize Arizonans' current coverage, and expand the government's control over health care. While you will not find the words "ration," "withhold coverage," or "delay access to care" in the pending plans, that is what will result from the web of federally-dictated insurance reforms, new legal obligations, and provider reimbursement schemes that are part of them. Such policies centralize the power of medical decisions with politicians and bureaucrats, not patients and doctors, and they will result in the delay or denial of care.

 

 

 

There are three main problems with the Majority party's proposals: the implementation of a government-run insurance plan, the use of comparative effectiveness research, and spending.

 

 

 

Government-Run Insurance Plan

 

 

 

First, the Majority's proposals would create a new, government-run health insurance plan to compete against private insurance plans. The argument is that a government-run plan would give consumers a better range of choices and make the health care market more competitive -- "keep the insurance companies honest," as the President put it. However, well-respected, independent analysis provides evidence to the contrary. For one thing, a government-run plan would be subsidized by the taxpayers, giving the government plan a huge advantage over competitors. Yet, even government resources are not unlimited. To save money after tens of millions of people are added to the public plan, the government would cut reimbursement to doctors and hospitals, exacerbating the difficulty Arizonans' already encounter in trying to schedule doctor appointments. To make up for low government reimbursements to providers, insurance companies would have to charge more for private insurance, making it less attractive than the government plan.

 

 

 

Over time, there will only be room for the government plan according to the respected Lewin Group, as 119 million Americans would lose their current coverage. Remember, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were designed as independent "government-sponsored enterprises" to complement the private mortgage market. Now, Fannie and Freddie account for a combined share of 73 percent of mortgage originations in the second half of 2008. The two "government-sponsored enterprises" are now effectively owned and run by the federal government, after having sustained losses of over $100 billion last year alone. A Washington-run health care plan will do to the health care market what Fannie and Freddie did to the housing market.

 

 

 

Comparative Effectiveness Research

 

 

 

Second, the Majority's plan would create a new research entity to conduct so-called comparative effectiveness research (CER). CER is a mechanism used by medical professionals to provide information on the relative strengths and weaknesses of various procedures and treatments. In the hands of doctors, medical researchers, and other health professionals, CER can help patients and their own doctors make informed health care decisions. However, in the hands of government, CER can become a tool to delay or deny care. For example, the National Institute for Health and Clinical Effectiveness in Britain uses "cost-effectiveness research" to make health care decisions. By basing treatment decisions on cost rather than need, Britain prescribes fewer cancer drugs than any of the other big five European nations; its patients therefore have the lowest survival rate according to a May edition of National Review. The UK's system provides only half of the care for end-stage renal disease patients that we do in the United States. Obviously, such rationing of care is not something we should replicate in the United States.

 

 

 

It is telling that none of the Majority's proposals in Congress would bar the federal government from using CER to deny access to care. In fact, when I offered an amendment in April to explicitly bar the use of CER to ration care, it was defeated on a near party-line vote. I have now introduced a free standing bill to ensure that any information obtained through CER cannot be used to deny access to care. The Preserving Access to Targeted, Individualized, and Effective New Treatments and Service (PATIENTS) Act of 2009 (S. 1259) will protect the doctor-patient relationship and ensure access to the highest quality medical care. I will fight at every opportunity to ensure that any health care reform plan the Senate considers later this year protects patients' access to care.

 

 

 

Cost

 

 

 

Finally, the Majority's plans would cost between $1 trillion and $2 trillion, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office. But even that may understate the true cost. Consider that Massachusetts enacted near universal health insurance in 2006, and costs have exploded, doubling from $630 million in 2007 to an estimated $1.3 billion just two years later. To deal with those costs, the state has decided to slow enrollment of beneficiaries and eliminate dental coverage for its poorest residents. A special commission, which was established by the state legislature, has now recommended limiting coverage to those health care services that government deems to be "cost-effective"-just like government-run health systems in other nations such as Canada and Great Britain do. This will quickly lead to rationing.

 

 

 

Furthermore, the plans would be financed by a combination of new taxes and cuts in Medicare spending, hurting seniors' access to care. The Medicare Trust Fund is already expected to reach bankruptcy by 2017, so taking money from Medicare to fund a huge expansion of health care benefits for others makes no sense.

 

 

 

Alternatives

 

 

 

Rather than upending the entire health care system, we should identify what specific problems exist and consider targeted solutions to lower costs and improve access to care. For example, medical liability reform must be part of any reform effort. Of course, malpractice lawsuits serve a valuable purpose for those who have truly been wronged, but malpractice law is often abused by some trial lawyers who flood courts with baseless lawsuits. The threat of these lawsuits against doctors is a big reason Americans' health-care premiums have soared.

 

 

 

Many physicians must purchase expensive malpractice insurance -- sometimes at a cost of more than $200,000 a year -- just to keep their doors open. Hudson Institute economist Diana Furchtgott-Roth estimates that 10 cents of every dollar paid for health care goes toward the cost of doctors' malpractice insurance, with much of the cost passed on to patients.

 

 

 

Additional costs are passed on as a result of the practice of "defensive medicine." Many doctors take extra, or defensive, precaution when treating patients, ordering tests or procedures that may not be needed, but will help protect them if they are sued. A 2008 study from the Massachusetts Medical Society reported that 83 percent of doctors said they order tests, procedures, and referrals solely as protection from lawsuits. According to a study by two Stanford economists, the use of defensive medicine increases Americans' medical costs by $100 billion a year.

 

 

 

In addition to tort reform, the federal government should remove barriers that limit consumers' ability to shop for quality coverage at a more affordable price. For example, the government should permit the sale of health insurance across state lines to increase competition among insurers. Small businesses should be able to band together to form small business health plans to strengthen their purchasing power and negotiate affordable rates and coverage options for their employees.

 

 

 

Additionally, individuals who purchase their own health insurance should receive the same tax incentives large businesses do. By promoting the use of Health Savings Accounts (HSAs), we could encourage more responsible health care spending and allow individuals to take their coverage with them when they move from one job to another. We should also incentivize healthy behaviors and encourage catastrophic coverage. Finally, we should allow each state to pursue innovative health insurance market reforms tailored to its own needs to encourage competition and choice.

 

 

 

I believe in the right of every American to choose the doctor, hospital, and insurance plan of his or her choice. No Washington bureaucrat should interfere with that right or substitute the government's judgment for that of a physician. Any health reform proposal should adhere to these principles.

 

 

 

I appreciate your sharing your thoughts on this important issue. Please stay in touch.

 

 

 

Sincerely,

 

 

 

JON KYL

 

United States Senator