Health Plan Threatens to Feed Your Gun-related Data Into a National Database --- And charge you $10,000 a year for the privilege Gun Owners of America E-Mail Alert 8001 Forbes Place, Suite 102, Springfield, VA 22151 Phone: 703-321-8585 / FAX: 703-321-8408 http://www.gunowners.org Thursday, April 2, 2009 In a year when trillion dollar bailouts have become routine, many Americans have become almost numb to our acceleration towards socialism. But gun rights activists aren't in that crowd, and so GOA has to inform you of yet ANOTHER threat to your privacy, the Second Amendment, and even your wallet. It is called an "individual mandate" or, alternatively, the "Massachusetts plan." And over the weekend, both the Washington Post and the New York Times worked hard to build momentum for it. First, a little history. We alerted you a few weeks ago to the gun control provisions in the stimulus bill that President Obama signed in February. Our government will now spend between $12 and $20 BILLION to require the medical community to retroactively put our most confidential medical records into a government database -- a database that could easily be used to deny veterans (and other law-abiding Americans) who have sought psychiatric treatment for things such as PTSD. Currently, gun owners can avoid getting caught in this database by refusing to purchase health insurance or by purchasing insurance with a carrier that has not signed an agreement with the government to place your records in a national database. But that's all about to change. A budget resolution -- to be voted on this Friday in the Senate -- will be the first domino in a process that could FORCE you to buy government-approved insurance, thus making it impossible to avoid the medical database. Put another way: If you do not have health insurance -- or, potentially, if you do not have the TYPE of health insurance the government wants you to have -- the government will force you to purchase what it regards as "acceptable" health insurance. And, in most cases, you will have to pay for it out of your own pocket. What would all this cost? Based on comparable insurance currently on the market, it could cost $10,000 a year -- or more. If you were jobless, the socialists would probably spot you the ten grand. But if you are middle class and can't pay $10,000 because of your mortgage payments, your small business, or your kids' college education, you would be fined (over $1,000 a year currently in Massachusetts). And, if you couldn't pay the confiscatory fine, you could ultimately be imprisoned. Scary, you say. But why is this a Second Amendment issue? Under the Massachusetts plan, your MANDATED insurance carrier has to feed your medical data into a centralized database -- freely accessible by the government under federal privacy laws. So... remember when your pediatrician asked your kid if you have a firearm in the home? Or when your dad was given a prescription for Zoloft because of his Alzheimer's? Or when your wife mentioned to her gynecologist that she had regularly smoked marijuana ten years ago? All of this would be in a centralized database. And all of it could potentially be used to vastly expand the "prohibited persons" list maintained by the FBI in West Virginia. How serious a threat is this? If it gets into the budget resolution the Senate will consider on Friday, it will be almost impossible to strip out later. It will be as much of a done-deal as the stimulus package was. We have asked senators to introduce language to prohibit such an individual mandate for socialized medicine that would violate the privacy of gun owners. In the absence of such an amendment, we are asking senators to vote against the budget resolution. ACTION: Write your U.S. Senators. Urge them to vote against the budget resolution if it does not contain language prohibiting a mandate that Americans buy government-approved health insurance against their will. Please 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: A budget resolution that could end up requiring Americans to purchase expensive health insurance policies against their will is truly frightening. And equally alarming is the fact that such mandated health care coverage could easily become a shill for gun control. Potentially, anyone who does not have health insurance-- or does not have the TYPE of health insurance the government wants them to have -- will be forced to purchase "acceptable" health insurance and pay for it out of our own pockets. Based on the cost of comparable insurance currently on the market, that could cost $10,000 a year -- or more. That's bad enough. But far worse, such a "Massachusetts Plan" would MANDATE that an insurance carrier feed medical data into a centralized database -- freely accessible by the government under federal privacy laws. Hence, a kid's statement to his pediatrician about his parents' firearms... or a dad's prescription for Zoloft because of his Alzheimer's... or a wife's statement to her gynecologist about her regular use of marijuana ten years ago... could all turn up in a federal database and unconstitutionally expand the list of "prohibited persons." Individuals would have no ability to opt out. For all of these reasons, if the budget resolution does not contain language prohibiting an "individual mandate" regarding health care, I would ask that you oppose the budget resolution. Sincerely,
Tags: AWB 2009, gun control 2009, News, Politics
Conservative Libertarian Outpost 
April 3, 2009 at 05:52
Let me get this straight. The government pursues a plan to standardize medical records and make them electronic (not to create a government-controlled database, as incorrectly reported here). And this standardized medical record concept is a threat to the Second Amendment rights.
Is this meant to be taken seriously? I cannot fathom how one leads to the other. Or even is remotely related to the other.
link removed as per my policy
LikeLike
April 3, 2009 at 05:59
Read it. It does a lot more than simply “standardize” records. More so during my more than thirty years in health care patient confidentiality was a premium concern. This makes your records available to anyone without consent or court order that is even remotely involved, and not necessarily in health care. Not to mention hackers…
LikeLike
April 3, 2009 at 06:45
I have been looking, and cannot find a source to read the actual legislation. Can you help? Thanks.
Either way, though, I still have a hard time perceiving the link from medical records to restriction of gun ownership rights. That’s a mighty big jump.
LikeLike
April 3, 2009 at 07:42
The Center Square – it would only be a big jump if you don’t realize that this country is currently in the process of being overrun and controlled by Big Government types who desperately want to disarm the population. There are so many “medical” issues that could be used to deny gun ownership if those records were available as a database accessible by the federal government. Remember, the first thing anyone who wants to truly control the US population is going to do, by any means, legal or not, is try to disarm the people.
ANY database can be corrupted and controlled and accessed so ANY information in a database available to the federal government can be used and make no mistake, will eventually be used to give them additional means of controlling our access to firearms.
I believe that while Patrick and I both realize that some of these things sound paranoid, it is true that over and over and at a rapidly accelerating pace the government is trying to back door legislation every way they can to disarm the citizens of the United States.
LikeLike
April 3, 2009 at 07:55
I guess I will have to say that I consider your view, “that this country is currently in the process of being overrun and controlled by Big Government types who desperately want to disarm the population,” to be an opinion. It is certainly not a fact that is beyond debate.
If the desire is so desperate, then surely these folks are to be mocked for pursuing the most roundabout, indirect, crazy-ass strategy imagineable, with this medical records scheme.
My personal opinion is that President Obama has probably not spent a single second thinking about Second Amendment issues since being sworn in. I know this is important to you, but it isn’t even on his radar. I do take at face value that he seeks an electronic medical record for the obvious healthcare system benefits, not as a twisted backdoor gun control strategy.
Thanks for exchanging ideas.
Link removed as per my policy
LikeLike
April 3, 2009 at 15:15
My guess is that Center Square is giving Obama a blowjob at every opportunity…
Am I close CS?? 😈
LikeLike
April 3, 2009 at 15:31
Given the opportunity to provide information, persuasion, argument, reasoning, facts, or logic, this is your comment, huh? I see.
LikeLike
April 3, 2009 at 16:59
There may be opinion in my responses CS, as are yours as well. I believe that the full bill is not yet available at the House or Senate websites so it is all speculation at this point to be sure. However, it sure appears that the sponsors of this piece of socialism are testing the waters. For you these may not be big issues. For myself as well as many others they are very real and important. The best example of government health care that I can come up with is the V.A. Not very reassuring to be sure. As for sneaking things into law that have nothing at all to do with the primary bill? That happens all to often. Same for so-called “Dark of the night” additions to bills and or amendments that get tossed into a package without a vote. Or, as in the case of Lautenberg, add things that were removed in committee without anyone knowing about that, then passing it without further consultation. Now, if that wasn’t an authoritarian move (big government) then I do not know what is. He turned Anglo American law on it’s head with it’s ex post facto provisions, as well as taking away inalienable rights for less than felony behavior or insanity. All in the name of political correctness and mysandry.
LikeLike
April 3, 2009 at 18:40
You’re very right that my thoughts here are opinion — that Obama had no anti-gun motives in recommending an electronic medical record policy.
Unlike a certain Texan I recently encountered, you do seem to give this due thought, and for that I commend you. To me, however, your theory requires vast linkages that are utterly without foundation other than base speculation. Yes, it sounds paranoid and ideological. But at least you have the courage of your convictions, and you’re willing to present them fairly, and respond to mine civilly. That’s a good thing. I’m sorry I can’t agree. (Well, I’m not actually sorry, but you know what I mean *lol*.) God bless.
LikeLike