Doctors and other health care providers also need to be able to ask about firearms in their patients’ homes and safe storage of those firearms, especially if their patients show signs of certain mental illnesses or if they have a young child or mentally ill family member at home. Some have incorrectly claimed that language in the Affordable Care Act prohibits doctors from asking their patients about guns and gun safety. Medical groups also continue to fight against state laws attempting to ban doctors from asking these questions. The Administration will issue guidance clarifying that the Affordable Care Act does not prohibit or otherwise regulate communication between doctors and patients, including about firearms.Funny thing about that 'clarification' -- it appears to mean denying that the law says what it very plainly says. Here's the text.
‘‘(c) PROTECTION OF SECOND AMENDMENT GUN RIGHTS.—I suppose that leaves some room to ask if you have unlawfully possessed guns, or stored them in an unlawful manner.
‘‘(1) WELLNESS AND PREVENTION PROGRAMS.—A wellness
and health promotion activity implemented under subsection
(a)(1)(D) may not require the disclosure or collection of any
information relating to—
‘‘(A) the presence or storage of a lawfully-possessed
firearm or ammunition in the residence or on the property
of an individual; or
‘‘(B) the lawful use, possession, or storage of a firearm
or ammunition by an individual.
‘‘(2) LIMITATION ON DATA COLLECTION.—None of the
authorities provided to the Secretary under the Patient Protection
and Affordable Care Act or an amendment made by that
Act shall be construed to authorize or may be used for the
collection of any information relating to—
‘‘(A) the lawful ownership or possession of a firearm
or ammunition;
‘‘(B) the lawful use of a firearm or ammunition; or
‘‘(C) the lawful storage of a firearm or ammunition.
‘‘(3) LIMITATION ON DATABASES OR DATA BANKS.—None of
the authorities provided to the Secretary under the Patient
Protection and Affordable Care Act or an amendment made
by that Act shall be construed to authorize or may be used
to maintain records of individual ownership or possession of
a firearm or ammunition.
‘‘(4) LIMITATION ON DETERMINATION OF PREMIUM RATES OR
ELIGIBILITY FOR HEALTH INSURANCE.—A premium rate may not
be increased, health insurance coverage may not be denied,
and a discount, rebate, or reward offered for participation in
a wellness program may not be reduced or withheld under
any health benefit plan issued pursuant to or in accordance
with the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act or an
amendment made by that Act on the basis of, or on reliance
upon—
‘‘(A) the lawful ownership or possession of a firearm
or ammunition; or
‘‘(B) the lawful use or storage of a firearm or ammunition.
‘‘(5) LIMITATION ON DATA COLLECTION REQUIREMENTS FOR
INDIVIDUALS.—No individual shall be required to disclose any
information under any data collection activity authorized under
the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act or an amendment
made by that Act relating to—
‘‘(A) the lawful ownership or possession of a firearm
or ammunition; or
‘‘(B) the lawful use, possession, or storage of a firearm
or ammunition.’’.
The mental health provisions are the ones that concern me, though. The fact is that there is no lab test for any mental illness -- you can't do a biopsy and prove that someone has a personality disorder the way you can prove they have cancer. By the same token, you can't prove that you don't have a mental disorder.
Subjecting any civil right to a limitation based on an untestable condition is a very dangerous idea. It's not for no reason that psychology was so often misused by Communist governments as a means of marginalizing (or imprisoning, or lobotomizing) regime opponents -- once you are painted as mentally ill, you can never prove your innocence.
Our normal standard is that you shouldn't have to prove your innocence, of course, but rather that the state should have to prove your guilt. Well, it cannot do that here. If restrictions are to be based on mental health, then, they must not depend on proof of guilt. They can only depend on allegations of guilt. Having to prove your innocence is too high a standard even in criminal matters, when it may sometimes be possible. It is far worse here, where such proof of innocence is actually impossible.
I am acquainted with someone diagnosed with and taking medication for bipolar disorder. They are worried they will never be able to purchase a firearm again. Not knowing what questions are asked (or will be in the future...) on the background check forms, I can offer no reassurances that this will not be the case...
ReplyDeleteNor can I.
ReplyDeleteI wonder how far this will be pushed, too. With the new health care law, everyone's medical records will be accessible to the government. There may be a push to try to find something that would be disqualifying. Even a single doctor or school counselor who was opposed to the Second Amendment could effectively strip dozens of their rights. Since there is no capacity to prove innocence of false charges -- let alone to establish just where a disorder like bipolar disorder becomes dangerous to others -- it's not clear what limits this new power has.
As in (I think) many cases, the bipolar was not diagnosed until adulthood (there are two that I know of... both had been "self-medicating" with drugs and alcohol prior to the actual diagnoses and receiving appropriate treatment.
ReplyDeleteWhen even my mother is talking about getting guns (while you still can), you know there is a problem... Mom is only now understanding that because of these fears, you have to wait on getting the gun you bought because they are out of stock, and that there is also a shortage of ammo...
We removed all the guns from my father-in-law's house about the time he got so mentally altered that he couldn't put up an effective resistance to our plan. It was part of the same process that caused us to take away his car keys: when he got to the point that he couldn't negotiate the process of calling a locksmith and getting a replacement set.
ReplyDeleteThat's how a family handles things. I wouldn't have wanted to see the state step in.
With the new health care law, everyone's medical records will be accessible to the government.
ReplyDeleteThere are two things that worry me about this. One is the relatively minor (but only relatively) matter of litigation. The Psychiatrist/Psychologist/GP/what-have-you who was treating the murderer being sued for not doing enough to stop the murderer. That's already about to happen in the Colorado theater shooting.
The other thing is the government access itself, and the government's definition of sufficiently insane as to be barred from possessing weapons (currently, the government is leaving that largely in the physician's hands, but that's easily changed). The larger threat is the government's use of this precedent to use "insanity" as a reason to bar lots of things. The USSR used to stifle dissidents by defining that as insane. We're a long way from this eventually, but this move by the government opens that door.
Eric Hines