Watch Live: Congressional Hearing on IRS Scandal

Live BlazeCast at 2pm ET: All the fireworks from the IRS Hearing!

Government

This Is How a Secret Gun Provision Made its Way Into Obamacare Legislation

Jan. 9, 2013 8:03am Billy Hallowell

Obamacare Legislation Includes Secret Gun Rights Provision | Harry Reid, Affordable Care Act

Credit: Getty Images

There’s a widely-unknown provision in the Affordable Care Act (also known as Obamacare) — legislative wording that is capturing attention in the wake of the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting. Pushed by the National Rifle Association (NRA), a newly-noticed regulation that was placed deep within the bill back in 2010, among other things, bans doctors from documenting patients’ answers to questions that focus upon guns.

The Washington Post first reported on Dec. 30 about the presence of this controversial wording. Under a section with the headline “Protection of Second Amendment Gun Rights,” the NRA-advocated wording is nestled deep within the law. The Post called the inclusion, “a largely overlooked but significant challenge to a movement in American medicine to treat firearms as a matter of public health.”

As the outlet also noted, it was in the final stretch of the debate over Obama’s health care legislation that the NRA successfully pushed to insert this language. Below, see the portions of the Affordable Care Act that include mentions of firearms and the parameters through which doctors must operate in questioning patients (read the entire health care bill here):

Obamacare Legislation Includes Secret Gun Rights Provision | Harry Reid, Affordable Care Act

On Tuesday, CNN chief medical correspondent Dr. Sanjay Gupta spoke on-air with “Situation Room” host Wolf Blitzer. The two discussed how the gun provision made its way into health care legislation, while also explaining portions of the text for viewers.

Gupta noted that the initiative to have the wording included during the contentious health care debate was rooted in the NRA’s stance that patients should not be penalized or discriminated against for owning firearms. As can be seen from the above portion of the legislation, while doctors are not banned from asking about guns, they are forbidden from documenting the information and using it for research purposes.

Watch Gupta explain the additive language:

In addition to gun-owner information and how it must be handled by doctors, the text also notes that the law cannot be used to keep and maintain records of individuals’ firearm possession, nor can it be used to track ammunition. Additionally, the language deals with the price of health care coverage, noting that cost cannot be impacted by the possession or ownership of guns, the Post also reported.

Following the tragedy at Sandy Hook, the presence of this provision has gained some press, with select politicians and medical groups taking a stand against it. Advocates are worried that research and medical care could suffer as a result of the wording; some are even pushing the Obama administration to consider changes to the text in light of recent events and an impending battle over new gun control legislation.

The Post has more about the ongoing battle between the NRA and physicians and advocates who stand opposed to the language inserted into the Affordable Care legislation:

NRA officials say they requested the provision out of concern that insurance companies could use such data to raise premiums on gun owners. The measure’s supporters in the Senate say they did not intend to interfere with the work of doctors or researchers.

But physician groups and researchers see the provision as part of a decades-long strategy by the gun lobby to choke off federal support for studies of firearms violence.

The research restrictions began in the 1990s, when the NRA urged Congress to cut funding for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s division that studied gun violence. In 1996, Congress sharply limited the agency’s ability to fund that type of research.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi take part in a joint Senate and House session to count of the Electoral College votes for the 2012 presidential election at the Capitol Hill in Washington on January 4, 2013. US President Barack Obama was officially declared the winner of 2012 presidential election after the counting session– a quaint formality, perhaps, but constitutionally required. Credit: AFP/Getty Images

Just as interesting as the debate over the provision, itself, is the notion that it was Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.), an NRA-supporter, who added the wording to the bill back in 2010. While a spokesperson for Reid told the Post that the leader never spoke with the NRA about the wording and that he did not believe that “it changed gun laws in any way,” that hasn’t stopped critics from wondering why Reid so staunchly supported the measure.

The language was purportedly added to stem off criticism from the NRA that could have railroaded, delayed or prevented the controversial health care bill from passing. Also, the wording was placed deep within the bill in an effort to convince people not to embrace so-called conspiracy theories about Obamacare — mainly that the legislation would be used to keep and maintain a massive gun-ownership database. Once the langage was added, the NRA reportedly remained neutral regarding passage of the law.

While Reid has been a gun rights advocate for quite some time, the politician may be having a change of heart in the wake of recent shootings and controversy surrounding this language. An adviser who spoke off-the-record, recently told CNN that the senator is “in a different place than he was in 2010″ when it comes to firearms.

In CONTROL, Glenn Beck presents a passionate, fact-based case for guns that reveals why gun control isn’t really about controlling guns at all; it’s about controlling us. Find out more HERE.

Back to The Blaze »

Comments (246)

MrKnowItAll
Posted on January 9, 2013 at 10:26am
I Miss Bob-Lo Park! RIP Captain Bob-Lo.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
TADTAD
Posted on January 9, 2013 at 10:26am
Yeah, no wonder Pelosi et al wanted to pass it before it could be read. This so illegal, immoral, unconstitutional and so Marxist. We should organize, plan, issue the OpOrd and complete the mission. I believe I am going to vomit. How I despise Washington law makers. They are the lowest from of criminal thugs.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- PRRedlin
  Posted on January 9, 2013 at 10:33am
  It’s illegal to prevent your doctor from asking whether or not you own a gun, and thus reporting it to the insurance companies who then raise your rates?
  
  Wow, you really did not even read the article (or the ACA bill) did you?
  
  This actually protects your rights… But you, like many on this site, read the misleading Lede (title) and just go straight to the comment section.
  
  Report this comment
- timarina
  Posted on January 9, 2013 at 7:50pm
  You should have read the article. No one the rabid rigtht is so woefully ignorant.
  
  Report this comment
EARSCHPLITTINLOUDENBOOMER
Posted on January 9, 2013 at 10:22am
Those two make my teeth itch. G.D. commies.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
Free_Thinker
Posted on January 9, 2013 at 10:19am
CNN’s story is a total twist of the truth, it claimed they can’t collect data on all guns. The act says “lawful guns”. That’s a huge difference from all guns.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
nocommie
Posted on January 9, 2013 at 10:18am
Hand your guns over to the communist.Ahh haaa haaaa

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
PRRedlin
Posted on January 9, 2013 at 10:18am
Know what makes me laugh the most about all the state governors who declined to set up exchanges? By allowing the federal government to do so, one of the providers of the exchange MUST BE NON PROFIT. Which means, they have decided it is best on the FEDERAL level to have a non-profit group provide coverage. This will directly lead to single payer as ALL providers must cover a particular amount of things. Private companies will have to cut the bells and whistles, or drastically raise their prices to compete with the non-profits, who will, by definition, be cheaper and save people money.

Single payer will be the result within 10-15 years. We win, you lose, and you cheerily accepted your governors actions as “being against the federal government” when in reality they were helping to put in place the longtime progressive goal of Single payer.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- StandingOnMyHead
  Posted on January 9, 2013 at 11:10am
  No, in the end we ALL lose!
  
  Report this comment
- PRRedlin
  Posted on January 9, 2013 at 11:24am
  As long as you admit that you do.
  
  Report this comment
- retiredfire
  Posted on January 9, 2013 at 12:39pm
  If you think any government can run something, even as a “non-profit”, more efficiently than for profit businesses, you are seriously deluded.
  The profit margin on health insurance companies is very low, and they have financial incentives to minimize costs, while government entities rely on the “bottomless pit” that taxpayer dollars provide.
  What will happen is that the government plans will hide the true costs, since they have access to other funds, and then, when the legitimate companies can’t compete, they will go out of business. Then the “single payer” will be the only one left, followed by the full cost being counted but it will be too late for us to recover. Government run= more costly, it will ever be thus.
  
  Report this comment
nilo
Posted on January 9, 2013 at 10:18am
When your candidate comes around for their 2014 re-election, ask them to sign a promise that they will read every bill before they vote on it!

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
txannie
Posted on January 9, 2013 at 10:16am
So…if your dr believes guns are bad and ask if you own one, he can alert the “authorities” that you are dangerous and need to be detained and your guns confiscated if this “NRA pushed inclusion” is not in the O-care, even if you went in for a stubbed toe and not an anger and/or mental problem? Did I understand this right? And this is bad how? I am sure there are those that think this should not be part of the o-care, but right now, it looks like the nra saw this stuff coming and tried to keep your dr/any healthcare rep from being a witch hunter. Just because you are having a problem and are on some meds does not make you a danger to society. The more we demonize someone with problems the less they will look for help before going off the deep end. Double-edged sword here.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
cdn1979
Posted on January 9, 2013 at 10:15am
so its not really a secret. it’s been there the entire time. thanks for making another mountain out of a mole hill. goodness the beckbots will fall for anything.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
Mapache
Posted on January 9, 2013 at 9:58am
I have no interest in being lectured to by some doctor about guns and gun safety. Doctors tend to think that every aspect of your life is their business. It is not. I pay the doctors to perform a service, not to provide a commentary on my life. If they choose not to have me as a patient that is their right as is my right not to have them as a doctor….at least until Obamacare starts assigning patients to doctors.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
RaydocX
Posted on January 9, 2013 at 9:52am
Read that carefully gang…
YOUR Government is by law preventing physicians from noting information they may consider pertinent.

No matter WHAT information a physician chooses to put down in his (or her… I hate feeling the need to add that… PC run amok) note, that is for patient care and should not be impacted by legislators or bureaucracy.

Do you really want your senator involved that directly in your medical care?

While i appreciate the NRA trying to protect gun rights, their own argument in the wake of Sandy Hook has been that mental health is a bigger issue… this would preclude getting that information out to a federal clearing house, which is reasonable, and abuse of which could be tracked and punished.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
ElmerLiberty
Posted on January 9, 2013 at 9:51am
We will not truly be safe until every law-abiding citizen has at least 3 bazookas, for home, car, and workplace.

It’s my constitooshanal rite!!!!

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- Mapache
  Posted on January 9, 2013 at 9:59am
  Bazookas? Really? Do you know anything about weapons? In the infamous words of Bugs Bunny, “What a maroon!”
  
  Report this comment
zetuff
Posted on January 9, 2013 at 9:49am
Gun controll will happen …just like health controll.. they will come up with a bill ..2000 pages or more .. tell congress to pass it without reading it..they will have the media on there side pushing it…just like they did for obamacare …. what happened to our journalists ? they r all paid activists.. for obama

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- PRRedlin
  Posted on January 9, 2013 at 10:37am
  It only takes a few hours to read the entire bill… please tell me you have at least read it now that it’s been law for two years?
  
  Report this comment
ChiefGeorge
Posted on January 9, 2013 at 9:43am
Got to pass it so we can see whats in it. We see! We See!

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
Metallicat
Posted on January 9, 2013 at 9:42am
It has nothing to do with studying gun violence. The FBI already does that. its about the medical community being able to harass patients who hunt and participate in shooting sports. My father has been an avid bow hunter his entire life. after the onset of arthritis he cant bow hunt,but our state allows those with arthritis to crossbow hunt with a permit,but my fathers doctor refuses to sign off on the permit, because he says he has no knowledge of such a law,and cant sign off on his crossbow permit. This doctor is using his own disdain for hunting to prevent my father from hunting.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- Mapache
  Posted on January 9, 2013 at 10:01am
  Find a new doctor. Tell the old one that when the zombies come he is on his own. The zombies are already taking over chicago.
  
  Report this comment
GrayPanther
Posted on January 9, 2013 at 9:36am
I must ask, can this provision be removed by a bureaucrat? Would it have to come to a floor vote to remove the NRA provision? President Nixon provided the EPA with a means to fix then corrupt our business operations. Will Obama Care be any different. Just askin”.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
toledofan
Posted on January 9, 2013 at 9:36am
You just have to wonder how long the hypocracy will last? These people, the politicans, are just off their rockers and want everyone to think they really care, what a bunch of bull. Unless you are insane and have no sense of reality, it’s obvious that its the guy or gal who pulls the trigger is the problem, but, nobody wants to address the real pissue, because they can’t use their magical powers to fix it. It’s just like more legislation, does anyone really think a criminal cares about a stiffer sentence or if the price of a bullet goes up? These people are living in never land and have no clue.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
Rillobymorning
Posted on January 9, 2013 at 9:32am
An annual budget is constitutionally required by Senate as well, but no one seems to call the administration on that one.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
Epic Fail
Posted on January 9, 2013 at 9:30am
That picture of Reid and Peloski made me puke a little in my mouth.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
Epic Fail
Posted on January 9, 2013 at 9:29am
If a doctor or anyone else asks you if you own firearms, and it is unrelated to the subject at hand, tell them no. Because its none of their damn business anyway. As far as they are concerned, you don’t have any.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- Mapache
  Posted on January 9, 2013 at 10:02am
  Ha ha,
  I would ask them if they want to see it since I always carry!
  
  Report this comment
blanco5
Posted on January 9, 2013 at 9:28am
Medical people are increasingly asking if there are guns in the home. DON’T answer yes. It’s another tactic for a registry for whom to confiscate from!

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
layosh
Posted on January 9, 2013 at 9:27am
NRA was right. Lookk what happenned wtih outis. Itsfrequecy went up from less of 1 in 10,000 to 1.4 in 100; a nearly thousand fold increase. What happened? Did our kids went out of their minds?
No. the good doctors changed the defiitions and created more customes for themseles…
Now immagine how this would play out if you find a badly characterized allegely mental problem that can exclude you from practicig your second amandment rights and cmbine it with a good old government pressure, on doctors… Just a little bit of tweeking and hundreds of thousands of citizens lose their gun-rights!
But wait! This is aleady happening to the veterans! PTSD is now a disqualifying disease!!!!
On one day a leftist could argue that DUI could be easily turned into similar “disease”. It takes just a well placed dollar and a couple of crooked doctors performning the needed “scientific” studies. Voila, anther couple of millions of gun owners evaporate…
Well done, NRA. Thank you.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
summitday113
Posted on January 9, 2013 at 9:21am
As a physician myself, I am well acquainted with the anti-gun agenda of organized medicine (AMA and the like). Doctors are increasingly being encouraged to be aggressive in discouraging gun ownership, it is the official stand that the only safe home is a home without a gun. Doctors are being encouraged to get parents out of the room with kids starting at about age 12. The goal is then to ask the child about sexual practices, guns in the home and other things, without parent present. For now, the stand on guns is to “counsel” parents who own guns on gun safety (ie store gun in a locked container and ammunition in a separate locked container). The purpose of asking about guns is to know who to provide counseling to – for now.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
decendentof56
Posted on January 9, 2013 at 9:19am
Everyone concerned about the legal right to own firearms so as to defend their family should join and donate to the NRA. They can use your help.
Other VERY worthwhile groups fighting for your freedom who deserve your backing:
NRTW- they really do work to defeat “forced Democratic political donations’ via union dues.

Nat. Gun Own. of America – their issue is the same as the NRA’s

AMA-American Motorcyclist Asso.- they fight to keep trail-riding areas open, and help off-road riding groups to maintain trail-riding areas. Closing off-road riding areas is a critical component of UN Agenda 21 and those areas are under constant attack by radical “environmentalist groups like the Sierra Club, Nature Conservancy, NWF, bicyclist groups, etc. Most of the California dessert has been closed, as well as old logging roads, etc. You will have NO (are you listening?) areas to ride off road.

Street bikes will be next, followed by your cars. You will NOT be driving across our beautiful country on vacation. The gas will be too expensive. The $10-15/gal will go to support “green” groups and their projects.
You think I’m making this up?
Theres a tax on using tanning booths (2010). Tow guys sitting in front of me at our TP meeting joked that they (gov) would tax sunshine if they could. They laughed! I leaned forward to remind them that they gave their name, address, and phone # to get that beach tag. They stopped laughing! You know…sunshine is bad and can cause higher healt

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- decendentof56
  Posted on January 9, 2013 at 9:25am
  the end of my last post should read……”sunshine is bad, and could cause healthcare costs to go up due to the fact that too much sun can cause melanoma’s.”
  Do any of you really think that you will NOT pay to continue to do the things you now take for granted?
  Want that big SUV? You will pay, say, a ‘ozone depletion surcharge’ if you MUST drive that Avalanche.
  Go for it, my friends!
  
  Report this comment
GuruMeditation
Posted on January 9, 2013 at 9:12am
My possessions are none of my doctor’s business and he will be frankly informed so.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- Mapache
  Posted on January 9, 2013 at 10:04am
  I think they NEED to know if you have a hammer. Who would have thought the Peter Paul and Mary song was an incident to violence in praise of hammers!
  
  Report this comment

It appears that you have Javascript Disabled. Please enable Javascript in your browser preferences for a better user experience on TheBlaze. You can not comment without Javascript enabled.