This is a discussion on Health Plan Threatens to Feed Your Gun-related Data Into a Nationl Database within the The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion forums, part of the Related Topics category; 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 ...
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
Gun Owners of America
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
"I'm not fluent in the language of violence, but I know enough to get around in places where it's spoken."
"A lot of phonies in the world who portray themselves as "victims". It takes a great deal of discernment to know they are fake."
Done and thanks for the heads up.
The most exhilarating thing in life is getting shot at with no results.
- Winston Churchill
Endowment Life Member - NRA
Life Member - GOA
Member - Oath Keepers, SAF, CCRKBA
U.S. Army (72G) 1975-1980
This, the "Food Security Act" and other Federal laws in the pipeline right now are pushing the American people into a corner. Common sense says that LAWS matter only when the people obey them. I hear the rumble of "enough !" in my neighborhood. After the cry will come the non-compliance. This government is already preparing for "civil unrest".....are they deliberately causing it ? Maybe.
The future will be nothing but interesting at least.
Disclaimer: I do not encourage or suggest civil disobedience. Only observing what events are occurring. As a avid reader of HISTORY, I suggest that all study history and learn the normal results of a government that nolonger listens to its citizens.
1) Many, especially military, retired military and veterans medical records are already govenment database.
2) I'll be honest...I already pay for other's medical, especially those that do not have medical insurance...its called medicaid and medicare. Who has been denied basic medical care?
3) 10K a year...now that is steep and doesn't appear right. The devil could be in the details though...as in deductable, types of coverage, percentage of coverage.
I think more needs to be explained besides this alert...not enough info.
I think there are good reasons to be cautious about national health databases*; and there are rational arguments that make sense for opposing mandatory health insurance**, though I think the MA experiment has been generally quite successful. And so is Medicare.
My "government" insurance - Medicare, and my private carrier all already have access to my medical history as part of the claims processing that necessarily takes place. There is no way around that unless everyone pays cash. As long as there is a third party, an insurance company in the mix, records are going to be shared.
I think the article at the top of the thread is quite a bit over the top, and in the tin foil hat category. OOOOOOhghh, the big bad 'govmint is gonna get ya.
If they want to get ya, they will get ya, and probably 'cause you did something.
My state already knows I have a CHL. Would it not be reasonable that I also own guns? It isn't like some new health insurance law has to be passed to make the information accessible. The information already exists and is widely disseminated --unless you buy your guns on a black market.
*The real danger a computerized national health records system poses is that the accessibility of existing information will make getting unbiased second opinions difficult unless the patient has an absolute right to keep physicians from looking at notes and lab results entered in the database by prior providers.
**Notwithstanding the above comment I believe we absolutely need universal health care. We pay for it as it is, might as well make things a bit more sensible than what we do now. By all estimates we squander 25-30% of our health care dollar on paper pushing; in contrast, Medicare processes claims for just a couple of % of the bill. If we could streamline claims processing, the docs could cut their staffs and spend their resources on something more productive than paper pushing.
Having said that, there was the "Stimulus Spending" that set the stage for a "Medical Database" and funded it, and what drove me up the wall was that because of the way Congress acted on the bill, there was no substantive public debate over that provision.
When is a databse more than a fancy filing system? When it is used for decision making.
ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ: Buy These Stickers Here
"A man without ethics is a wild beast loosed upon the world" Albert Camus
"The Voices..." have told me that this is bad!
Proverbs 27:12 says: “The prudent see danger and take refuge, but the simple keep going and suffer for it.”
Certified Glock Armorer
NRA Life Member
There, they were arguing that if you tell your doc you have guns in your home "the government" will know, and then who knows where that will lead.
I think that is at best a somewhat paranoid like concern. If Uncle wants to find out that you own guns, they will find out, and we don't need to kill health care reform over fear of gun confiscation.
That said, there has been NO public discussion of what a national computerized health database would look like. Will it be built by the same marvelous folks who gave voting machines that don't do honest vote counts?
What will prevent hackers from stealing and misusing the stored information?
What control over the content will the patient have? That hasn't been thrashed out, as far as I know.
We have a "public issue" here in town right now. A home health agency apparently dumped thousands of medical records including soc. security numbers and other confidential stuff in a dumpster---where the news media somehow found it and turned it over to the attorney general as evidence of massive HIPPA violations, if I got the story right.
Who is going to make sure files are cleaned out? Who is going to get to see files when someone is deceased? How long after departure will the health files be retained, and by whom?
None of this has been worked out.
Now, here is the dirty secret about lots of legislation and it is the same crappola game playing regardless of party.
Lots of stuff gets sold to Congress, and to the public, with all manner of deceptive tactics which make a pig's ear look like a purse. The question to ask is who is really going to make money from this transformation of the record's landscape?
You can bet that somewhere hidden deep below the surface are two or three giant corporations who expect to make billions from the transition.
Switching to computerized records may be a great idea, if we had a Congress with an attention span and an ability to make sure things get done in a way that protects medical privacy. I doubt such protection will be part of the new system.
Meanwhile, let the monies be disbursed far and wide and stimulate something. So long of course as the contracts don't go to Rahul in Mumbai.
I think some of you could be way off, but then again the feeling is probably mutual. I don't think this is just a second amendment issue. In fact, I think the second amendment aspect is a red herring so to speak.
It's a basic rights issue for me. Who is the government to tell me I MUST use such and such insurance. That I or my providers must provide my records to the government to look over and do as they please. Pardon my bleeped french but f(*(%^ you!
Ask yourself this. What does it take for the government to make sure that you're following a "mandatory" rule or regulation?
If you answered the initiation of, or threat of initiation of force, you get a brownie point. What is the role of the government SUPPOSED to be again?
Whatever some think it is, I can guarantee that it's not supposed to be telling you that your medical records(ie your property and your private information) are theirs for the taking at the barrel of a gun or fining you into a cardboard box on a street corner. And make no mistake, that is EXACTLY what this is.
It's no more right than your neighbor taking your home, your land, and your life to be sold into slavery with a rifle pointed at your head.
There is no gray. It's black and white. The question is, where do YOU draw the line? ...or do you even understand the difference between right and wrong?
Please take a moment to help a Veteran and one of our own: gofundme.com/5d9dfa2s
Not much of an advantage - Roanoke.comEditorial: Not much of an advantage
Private Medicare plans have not lived up to their promises of greater efficiency.
The Obama administration is tightening the rules on private Medicare plans to reduce the number of versions, a much-needed move toward greater transparency. The rule changes would also limit patients’ copayments to the amounts charged under traditional Medicare.
The changes are likely just the opening gambits in cutting private Medicare Advantage plans, a course that will meet with industry resistance and protests among some consumers.
President Obama should stay the course.
While some Advantage plans are popular among some senior citizens who like having the choice, the plans are proving too costly for taxpayers, who must foot the bill. Plus, the private plans are open to marketing scams that victimize an often vulnerable population.
A fair, rational health care system for all Americans will have to be paid for, in large part, by eliminating waste and fraud in the current system. Private Medicare plans are prime targets on both counts.
The government figures that, on average, it pays about 14 percent more to cover older Americans under private Medicare plans than under traditional Medicare. Surely this is not the outcome the Bush administration intended when it touted private plans as the means to allow competition to wring efficiencies from a bloated public system.
Still, the new Democratic administration in Washington does not plan to end Medicare Advantage. It proposes to cut payments 3.75 percent overall to the private medical plans — hardly excessive, given the apparent high overhead introduced by market dynamics.
The rein on profits might also help rid the program of some bad actors, whose agents have been accused of tricking sick old people into giving up their Medicare coverage for policies that lack the coverage they need, yet cost the government more in premiums.
Greater transparency is likely to reduce confusion and also act as a curb against the worst abuses.
The Obama administration should be more aggressive still, though, in insisting that private plans be at least as efficient as traditional Medicare in delivering health care to senior citizens — and do so no matter what the insured’s health status might be.
Medicare Advantage ought to work to the advantage of the American taxpayer, after all, or cease to exist.
I'm just one root in a grassroots organization. No one should assume that I speak for the VCDL.
I am neither an attorney-at-law nor I do play one on television or on the internet. No one should assumes my opinion is legal advice.
Veni, Vidi, Velcro
If a country the size of Great Britain can't get an electronic Medical database to work. (They have been working on it for years.) Why does our government think that this is a good thing?
The amount of processing power and networking capabilities required to make this a feasible option would be enormous. Couple this with the current bandwidth required for Internet and other business applications and we are going to quickly discover that our current technology has its limits.
It looks to me like they are going to be throwing money into a leaking boat. This will be a boondoggle for the lobbyists.
One more step in the direction of socialism ... I am glad I'll be 70 next year and we don't have kids.
I saw my wife's country (France) turn to socialism in the late 70's; she still has relatives she talk to every week; it is not pretty; much worse than what you can read in the media
The first rule of a gunfight: "Don't be there !"
The second rule: "Bring enough gun"
jfl (NRA Life Member/Instructor - GOA - IDPA - GSSF - ex-IHMSA)
"Run for your life from the man who tells you that money is evil. That sentence is the leper's bell of an approaching looter. So long as men live together on earth and need means to deal with one another-their only substitute, if they abandon money, is the muzzle of a gun."
Who is John Galt?