bob: Gosh, giving a discount to people who don’t have guns in their house (and are thus much less likely to be injured by guns) is almost as insane as requiring people who drive cars to carry insurance.

As my favorite saying goes “Better to have it and not need it than need it and not have it” and I’M NOT referring to the health care bill recently passed. Driving is a privilege, not a constitutional right. Try changing that and see what happens.

Sorry I do not buy any of the paranoia being portrayed here, in fact this is exactly why I left the NRA, this kind of single issue silliness and complete irrationality.

This is a non-issue and all justifications used to say otherwise (like so many above) make great case studies for abnormal psychology journals. Yes there are SOME people who want to take away guns, but until the 2nd amendment is abolished, stop the whining.

I do not, and here, in part, is why: it is simple fact that, in the main, those vigourously promoting this sham of a health care bill are also, in the context of being elected leaders in this country, at LEAST as vehemently opposed to private gun ownership. On its face, I find this overlapping set disturbing.

add to this the fact that, to be legal to operate in the proposed healthcare insurance environment, ALL insurance policies MUST meet certain government mandated parameters, what we WILL surely be dealing with is NOT a free market scenario. (truth be told, though few want to see this, we do not have such a market now. NO ONE can sell a medical care insurance policy that does NOT include a large number of services which I, personally, will never call for, yet I MUST pay for them for others covered in the mandated pool of insureds (coverage such as contraception, substance abuse recovery, other types of “counselling”; further, I also am forced to pay for high risk activities engeged in by others in the pool, and which I avoid for various moral/health reasons, as smoking, unrestrained sexual activity, drug use, certain extreme sports activities. While I do not contribute to the risk pool being insured against, I am now FORCED, by government mandate, to bear the risk as though I were IN that class of insured. Is anyone here naive enough to think, given the present lack of free market insurance provision, this will suddenly change under this legislation? Might I enquire what mind-altering substance you have been ingesting?

This bill, at its root, has little to do with truly improving our healthcare industry, and everything to do with government expansion and control. Since those who promote this bill are, in the main, also opposed to private gun ownership, I see no stretch whatsoever in wanting to guard against any possibility that this monstrosity of legislation could, buried within it, contain provisions to pave the way for denial of our God-given rights as assured under the first thirteen ammandments to our Constitution. As someone already mentioned, “shall not be infringed” (our right to arms) has been conveniently tossed on the garbage heap of government control by special interest groups. Ever tried to get a Conceal Weapons Permit in California? Without one, I can’t even carry a loaded weapon in that strange republic. Not even in my car. There are also a number of weapons that state refuses to allow me to own, were I resident (I am not, and will not willingly become one until they rejoin the Union, what’s left of it). If government by the whim of those in power has brought California to that point, and that in not many years, why should I believe those wielding the power, and promoting this legislation, (and, meanwhile, also blatantly opposing MY right to arms) will NEVER use this legislation to do so? It would not surprise me in the least if this issue were one of the driving forces furthering this legislation. We’ve already learned of a few dozen rotten back-room deals to gain more votes for this farce, It is no stretch to think these same operatives, in their back room dealings, have wilfully determined to make room for the effective infringement of our right to arms as a part of the package.

Don’t believe me? Go and read the full text of the United Natioins Treaty on the Rights of the Child, which our fearless and unscrupulous leaders currently favour. Buried in the later parts of it are provisions that certainly WILL provide for the disarming of entire nations on the basis that “guns in homes are bad for children, therefor no one can have guns in their homes”. To carry it past the masses, the mantra “its for the children” will become ubiquitous. How different is that from “its for your health”?

Yes, healthcare in this nation needs reforming, but THIS treasonous lot of nonsense is NOT the answer. Our legislators are selling us down the river, using force, coercion, bribery, stealth. they are refusing to HEAR us, We the People. And anyone willing to completely trust our fearless leaders to do us nothing but good in this bill is delusional. There ARE soldiers, well armed, hidden within the wooden horse they are rolling toward us.

Before you call me paranoid, take a few days and read of the rise of the Third Reich earlier in the last century. Noot only bwithin Germany were the people asleep, but in the rest of the West as well. Some sounded the alarum, but no one wanted to hear it, so they were run off in shame. Imagine their surprise when the very things they had warned against came to pass. Harry Reid’s tactics in railroading this bill through the Senate have been deplorable, and, I rather suspect, illegal. I can only hope someone has the eyes to see how, and the spine to stand and call “enough”. But, somehow, I doubt this will happen in time.

Purple Kooaid: how are you avoiding the pesky question of “Do you own a gun”. I’m changing pediatricians and the new questionnaire asks. My only dilemma is I live in a high crime city and afraid that if someone in the office sees I don’t own a gun, they might take advantage of this.

There is another answer you can give to the question: “None of your GD business!”

JPG:
Yes, you missed the entire limitative part of the provision, which is key to understand Bobba’s point on the wellness programs and was left out by David Kopel and his minions in this discussion…

Can you spell it out for me? Which line on which page describes the limitative part that you are talking about?

I just went through the bill again at http://democrats.senate.gov/reform/patient-protection-affordable-care-act.pdf and the sections describing the wellness program start on…

Page 84 line 15 (j) PROGRAMS OF HEALTH PROMOTION OR DISEASE PREVENTION
and continuing to
Page 85 line 12 (C) CONDITIONS BASED ON HEALTH STATUS FACTOR
and then specifically to
Page 87 line 6 (3) WELLNESS PROGRAMS SUBJECT TO REQUIREMENTS

Without quoting verbatim, here is what I am reading.

IF there is a wellness program, and IF a health status is a requirement of the program, then it MUST MEET the following 5 program REQUIREMENTS starting at page 87 line 14 (my summary)…

A) Discount can not exceed more than 30% of total cost unless Secretary of Labor, Health and Human Services, and the Treasury deem appropriate extending the discount up to a limit of 50% of total cost.

B) “The wellness program shall be reasonably designed to promote health or prevent disease”

C) Has to be available at least once a year.

D) Has to allow medical waivers.

E) Full disclosure of terms and reasonable alternative standards(?).

Requirement B) coupled with the loose definition of a wellness program is what troubles me.

Ok, I fully admit I may have missed something. So please point out this “limitative part” that you are both referring to because I don’t understand.

Signed,
Knucklehead :)

Guy:
I dunno if this makes any difference.People were worried about hypothetical actions of a future administration, right?So the gun control lobby could get Congress to mandate rebates in wellness programs for people who don’t own guns, it would just take one bill. This is no less bizarre a fear than the initial one suggested by Kopel’s analysis.Obviously, the sane response is to prevent this by voting down the health care bill, right?

That is a perfectly legitimate worry. Kopel could well have discussed the fact that this bill may be opening a floodgate of government decision-making in health care, but that’s not what he’s doing in his post above. In fact, the section of the bill in question empowers the administration to, if it so chooses, BAR private businesses from offering rebates in wellness programs for people who don’t own guns. The focus of that section of the bill is NOT to enable the government to offer discounts and rebates based on arbitrary and discriminatory reasons, the focus is to enable the government to prevent private businesses from doing just that. In light of government subsidies in healthcare, that is a good provision to have. But another likewise perfectly legitimate worry is that private businesses may offer rebates for not owning guns even if those rebates receive nothing from government subsidies. That could happen without any government health care reform whatsoever. The topic of Kopel’s analysis could easily be applied to private business practices, but that is a point that he does not bring up, nor does he bring up the fact that the section of the bill in question may actually be used to prevent discrimination against gun owners, because his message is opposition for government intervention. That’s all and well, but it’s entirely too dogmatic once you try to narrow the scope into the fine prints of a bill. And in this particular case, the analysis was simply out of context.

Bobba:
Like I keep saying, this section of the bill does not mandate, or even explicitly permit, giving a discount to anybody for participating in a Wellness Program.So how would the government penalise anybody for NOT participting in a Wellness Program?It doesn’t empower the government to give these discounts either.The entire section is on prohibiting discriminatory practices in health benefits, and that quoted text above as well as the 30% is to define what would be considered a discriminatory Wellness Plan which an employer provides.The point is to prohibit discriminatory practices in the health benefits which private businesses offer their employees.In fact, the existence of this section might serve to eliminate wellness programs that discriminate based on gun ownership.Granted, without government subsidies on healthcare, this may be a non-issue.But then without this provision, private businesses would also be free to discriminate against beneficiaries based on arbitrary reasons which may or may not include gun ownership.This entire context is something that Kopel failed to mention in his post above.And the fact that he suggested it can be used by HHS Secretary to penalise gun owners is plain laughable.The section doesn’t enable the HHS Secretary to impose discounts/penalties.It enables her to prohibit Wellness Programs that are discriminatory.There were Republicans, specifically in the Gang of 14, who collectively thought to themselves, “Are you nuts?” when it was suggested during the GOP-controlled Congress that they eliminate filibusters, because Republicans themselves have used filibusters and will probably be using them soon in the future.Well, all it takes is for a pro-gun ownership HHS Secretary to get in office and the existence of this section will enable him or her to make sure gun owners are not discriminated against in employer-provided wellness programs.Without this provision, however, there is less legal backing for him or her to do so.In fact, the GOA flyer which the Washington Examiner quoted actually has more of a point than does Kopel.But Kopel likewise failed to mention the context of the message in the flyer.The connection that the GOA made between the bill and gun control is “post traumatic stress disorder or something similar”.Kopel himself, however, in his post above, uses the GOA to launch his message but makes a jump from healthcare to gun control without bothering to mention the link which the GOA made.Kopel’s analysis here is a hackjob, plain and simple.

I dunno if this makes any difference. People were worried about hypothetical actions of a future administration, right? So the gun control lobby could get Congress to mandate rebates in wellness programs for people who don’t own guns, it would just take one bill. This is no less bizarre a fear than the initial one suggested by Kopel’s analysis. Obviously, the sane response is to prevent this by voting down the health care bill, right?

s lee: We agree on this…1) Wellness programs are defined in this bill (paragraph (B) on page 88).2) Wellness programs may be used to provide a discount not to exceed a maximum of 30%.What (I think) we are discussing is…Whether the definition given in (1) is overly broad and can be used to discriminate against gun owners using some (questionable) research which concludes that gun ownership is a health risk.Am I missing completely missing the point guys? I really don’t see what Bobba is pointing out.

Like I keep saying, this section of the bill does not mandate, or even explicitly permit, giving a discount to anybody for participating in a Wellness Program. So how would the government penalise anybody for NOT participting in a Wellness Program? It doesn’t empower the government to give these discounts either.

The entire section is on prohibiting discriminatory practices in health benefits, and that quoted text above as well as the 30% is to define what would be considered a discriminatory Wellness Plan which an employer provides. The point is to prohibit discriminatory practices in the health benefits which private businesses offer their employees. In fact, the existence of this section might serve to eliminate wellness programs that discriminate based on gun ownership. Granted, without government subsidies on healthcare, this may be a non-issue. But then without this provision, private businesses would also be free to discriminate against beneficiaries based on arbitrary reasons which may or may not include gun ownership.

This entire context is something that Kopel failed to mention in his post above. And the fact that he suggested it can be used by HHS Secretary to penalise gun owners is plain laughable. The section doesn’t enable the HHS Secretary to impose discounts/penalties. It enables her to prohibit Wellness Programs that are discriminatory. There were Republicans, specifically in the Gang of 14, who collectively thought to themselves, “Are you nuts?” when it was suggested during the GOP-controlled Congress that they eliminate filibusters, because Republicans themselves have used filibusters and will probably be using them soon in the future. Well, all it takes is for a pro-gun ownership HHS Secretary to get in office and the existence of this section will enable him or her to make sure gun owners are not discriminated against in employer-provided wellness programs. Without this provision, however, there is less legal backing for him or her to do so.

In fact, the GOA flyer which the Washington Examiner quoted actually has more of a point than does Kopel. But Kopel likewise failed to mention the context of the message in the flyer. The connection that the GOA made between the bill and gun control is “post traumatic stress disorder or something similar”. Kopel himself, however, in his post above, uses the GOA to launch his message but makes a jump from healthcare to gun control without bothering to mention the link which the GOA made.

Kopel’s analysis here is a hackjob, plain and simple.

It will likely be used as a tool to reward campaign contributors. (By promoting the use of their products to receive the discount.)

A great deal of fraud like this already exists. Do you save money when you use your Kroger/safeway/Ralphs card? Or are those who don’t have such a card fined for not having it?

Most “Deals” aren’t deals… They’re just normally overpriced. That is why rebates were so popular… Most people forget to send it in…

If we have learned anything over time… It’s that government shouldn’t be incentivizing responsibility. Incentives for doing your job is ridiculus, and often leads to corruption.
There needs to be zero influence by congress in repaying campaign contributions with tax dollars.

s lee:
We agree on this…
1) Wellness programs are defined in this bill (paragraph (B) on page 88).
2) Wellness programs may be used to provide a discount not to exceed a maximum of 30%.What (I think) we are discussing is…
Whether the definition given in (1) is overly broad and can be used to discriminate against gun owners using some (questionable) research which concludes that gun ownership is a health risk.Am I missing completely missing the point guys? I really don’t see what Bobba is pointing out.

Yes, you missed the entire limitative part of the provision, which is key to understand Bobba’s point on the wellness programs and was left out by David Kopel and his minions in this discussion…

Federal Farmer:
What if they “Hide the Decline”?Not like that’s never happened before…

Oh darn, you figured it out, AGW was just a trial run for the real plan – using universal healthcare to take away your guns.

leesus: is this to be applied fairly? A swimming pool is a zillion times more dangerous than a handgun. Will there be discounts for not owning a pool? Same for sports. Gun injuries are dwarfed by sports injuries. Will we also raise rates for people that play sports? Even worse: The gay community accounts for 90% of all AIDS cases. AIDS is whacking people faster than all the gun death combined, and is incredibly expensive to treat. What is the legal take on that? Can they immediately rasie taxes on our gay friends because statistically they are riskier than gun ownership?

Why do about a quarter of the people on this thread sound like this is being proposed? Nobody is proposing that wellness programs require you to not own a gun. People are worried that someone, somewhere, someday, might make such a proposal. Is it my imagination or are pro-gun people becoming increasingly paranoid as they become more powerful and more unchallenged? It’s like the ammo shortage because everyone thinks Obama’s going to outlaw guns, even though the Democrats learned long ago that they lose points in public opinion anytime the issue of guns comes up, and have made absolutely no indication whatsoever that they intend to push gun control.

ShelbyC:
So you’d be ok with a law making health insurance more expensive for folks who don’t agree not to get an abortion?

Did you hear about the Stupak Amendment? Why you guys are making gun ownership rights look like they’re in imminent threat because of some distant action by some agency that might hypothetically decide a wellness program must require non-gun-ownership? That is incredibly speculative. Meanwhile the Democrats bent over backward and agreed to seriously marginalize abortion access (not speculatively- but in fact) just to get the bill passed.

Bobba:
The analysis is entirely out of context to begin with.The part of the bill that it discusses is under a larger section that defines how a Wellness Program is considered discriminatory based on pre-existing health status.It does NOT say, as the analysis implies, “Let’s give a 30% insurance discount to people with a Wellness Program.”And the 30% specifically refers to one TYPE of Wellness Plan that the section discusses, not ALL Wellness Plans.It refers to plans which target beneficiaries that meet a health status.What it is talking about is, IF an employer offers a rebate for programs that are specifically for, for example, diabetes, then it is considered discriminatory if that rebate exceeds 30% of employee cost of coverage.It does not say, an employer MUST offer a rebate of 30% for health insurance if an employee participates in a Wellness Plan.Again, the text in question here does NOT define a Wellness Plan.It defines what is considered DISCRIMINATORY in a Wellness Plan.

We agree on this…
1) Wellness programs are defined in this bill (paragraph (B) on page 88).
2) Wellness programs may be used to provide a discount not to exceed a maximum of 30%.

What (I think) we are discussing is…
Whether the definition given in (1) is overly broad and can be used to discriminate against gun owners using some (questionable) research which concludes that gun ownership is a health risk.

Am I missing completely missing the point guys? I really don’t see what Bobba is pointing out.

That said, I don’t think it’s helpful to limit the discussion specifically to gun ownership. A narrower definition of “wellness program” might be helpful to prevent new government oversight of a variety of personal conduct that has some correlation with health of survival but which lies outside of physical fitness, diet, preventative care, and similar specifically health-oriented programs.

Allan: Hrumph. This provision is 2A neutral.Your point that a wellness program could give discounts for not owning a firearm might be right. But just as easily, wellness programs could include owning a gun. Indeed, if you ran the program it would. Your position has consistently been that individual ownership (and concealed carrying) reduces crime. Reduced crime means fewer shooting victims. Fewere shooting victims means less spent caring for shooting victims. Thus, owning and carrying a firearm is a net health care winner.The provision can easily go both ways. Therefore, it is 2A neutral.

So legal, law abiding gun owners need to foot the bill, while the criminal gun owners pay nothing since they do not own any registered guns. Hmmmm, sounds fair to me. Was this part of the bill written by Bob?

bob: Gosh, giving a discount to people who don’t have guns in their house (and are thus much less likely to be injured by guns) is almost as insane as requiring people who drive cars to carry insurance.

Brian K: That’s an easy question. people on this site like guns and don’t like abortion. it’s as simple as that. all the legal, moral, ethical backbending is little more than an attempt to justify what they already think.

As far as legal, show me where abortion is mentioned in the bill of rights. As far as moral or ethical, show me where mere gun ownership terminates a life.

ArthurKirkland: If access to a medical procedure such as abortion — which almost surely would reduce health care costs — is to be disadvantaged by health care legislation, why would it be more objectionable to disadvantage gun ownership?As with abortion, if gun ownership isn’t banned, what is the problem?

That’s an easy question. people on this site like guns and don’t like abortion. it’s as simple as that. all the legal, moral, ethical backbending is little more than an attempt to justify what they already think.

If we apply the twisted logic of this thread, the Government is actually LIMITING the discrimination that can happen towards gun owners. I say twisted because, as was pointed out above, the “logic” used ignores the plain language of the words.

s lee: Hi Bobba :)
I don’t think anyone here is arguing about the percentage points — it could be 20%, it could be 50%. That is not the issue.The issue is, can a broadly defined Wellness Program be used to discriminate against certain groups of people and unfairly penalize them by some percentage, say 30% in this case.Sound fair?

Yankev:
Sorry, rpt, anyone who proffers the supposedly self evident proposition that gun owners are at greater risk of GSW than non-gun owners immediately makes me suspect their logic, data and intent.

I said nothing about this proposition. I have no such knowledge. I observed only that the “take any my guns” fear is being used as an argument against health care reform. Maybe it is a good argument, maybe not. You know better than I.

s lee: Hi Bobba :)
I don’t think anyone here is arguing about the percentage points — it could be 20%, it could be 50%. That is not the issue.The issue is, can a broadly defined Wellness Program be used to discriminate against certain groups of people and unfairly penalize them by some percentage, say 30% in this case.Sound fair?

The analysis is entirely out of context to begin with. The part of the bill that it discusses is under a larger section that defines how a Wellness Program is considered discriminatory based on pre-existing health status. It does NOT say, as the analysis implies, “Let’s give a 30% insurance discount to people with a Wellness Program.”

And the 30% specifically refers to one TYPE of Wellness Plan that the section discusses, not ALL Wellness Plans. It refers to plans which target beneficiaries that meet a health status. What it is talking about is, IF an employer offers a rebate for programs that are specifically for, for example, diabetes, then it is considered discriminatory if that rebate exceeds 30% of employee cost of coverage. It does not say, an employer MUST offer a rebate of 30% for health insurance if an employee participates in a Wellness Plan. Again, the text in question here does NOT define a Wellness Plan. It defines what is considered DISCRIMINATORY in a Wellness Plan.

s lee: Putting aside crime statistics and criminal behavior studies, why 0.5%? Wouldn’t the failure to participate in a “wellness program” potentially disqualify you from up to 30% in savings? What is the average savings in current health plans for individuals who qualify and participate in a wellness program?

I’m simply assuming there would be different Wellness Programs with distinct targets. I guess we’d both agree a program granting the same benefits to a) an obese, chips-eating, booze drinker, sedentary drinker who doesn’t own a gun and b) a fit athlete, non-smoker who eats vegetables, seldom drinks and quit smoking, such program would call for some tweaking…

I made up the 0.5% figure since no one could argue gun ownership to be as meaningful (healthwise) to a sane a balanced diet, or exercise, thirty percent being a max to be reached, all probable programs considered as a whole. But I believe the figure is more likely to be a flat 0%.

JPG:
But those in charge of fighting crime rightly ough to have an effect on gun control. Guns and crimes are naturally linked to each other, on both sides of those who wish to fight crime and those who wish to commit crimes. What is the likeliest effect, in the worse case scenario, of these Wellness Programs on gun owners? They will be denied a 0.5% reduction on their primes if, and only if, those in charge truly insist on gun ownership being taken into account? Or maybe is there something I’m missing?

Putting aside crime statistics and criminal behavior studies, why 0.5%? Wouldn’t the failure to participate in a “wellness program” potentially disqualify you from up to 30% in savings?

What is the average savings in current health plans for individuals who qualify and participate in a wellness program?

SeaDrive: I’m on DK’s side on this one. There are many examples of elected representatives using areas of discretion allowed by law for political ends. The flip-flopping of policies based on abortion views is notorious. On the gun side, many states have passed gun control statues that lean heavily on the discretion of the local police chief, and the effective gun control climate is different from city to city within those states, and it changes based on the incumbent chief LEO. (So much from the rule of law, and not the rule of men!)

But those in charge of fighting crime rightly ough to have an effect on gun control. Guns and crimes are naturally linked to each other, on both sides of those who wish to fight crime and those who wish to commit crimes. What is the likeliest effect, in the worse case scenario, of these Wellness Programs on gun owners? They will be denied a 0.5% reduction on their primes if, and only if, those in charge truly insist on gun ownership being taken into account? Or maybe is there something I’m missing?

Bobba: Did anybody here actually read that section of the bill for himself or herself?That section is covered under the larger section defining what is considered discrimination based on health status.The 30% that it is talking about specifically refers to this: if a wellness program with an eligibility requirement based on a health status offers a value to the beneficiary exceeding 30% of cost of coverage, then it is in violation of being discriminatory.It DOES NOT say — let’s give a 30% insurance discount to anybody with a wellness program!READ THE DAMN BILL, PEOPLE.

I don’t think anyone here is arguing about the percentage points – it could be 20%, it could be 50%. That is not the issue.

The issue is, can a broadly defined Wellness Program be used to discriminate against certain groups of people and unfairly penalize them by some percentage, say 30% in this case.

Sound fair?

David Kopel argues those in charge of Wellness Programs would/could use their programs as a way to promote an anti-gun agenda. I find that to be a wide stretch of the imagination, to be polite…

I’m on DK’s side on this one. There are many examples of elected representatives using areas of discretion allowed by law for political ends. The flip-flopping of policies based on abortion views is notorious. On the gun side, many states have passed gun control statues that lean heavily on the discretion of the local police chief, and the effective gun control climate is different from city to city within those states, and it changes based on the incumbent chief LEO. (So much from the rule of law, and not the rule of men!)

It DOES NOT say – let’s give a 30% insurance discount to anybody with a wellness program! READ THE DAMN BILL, PEOPLE.