Bleg: can anyone tell me if this is true?

Update and bumped:  Well, it seems that Sheridan, Brent, and Judy in the Comments (thanks folks) are all correct – while not explicitly written into the current bill, there is a lot of wiggle room to allow a "health Czar" (current, the HHS Secretary) to pretty much do what s/he wants to do.  

In other words, the chuckleheaded weasels that are foisting this on us (from NH: Senator Shaheen, and CongressCritters Carol Shea-Porter and Senator-wannabee Hodes) have abdicated their roles as decision makers.  Instead of doing the jobs we elected them to, they’re all set in letting a bureaucrat do the dirty work for them.

All the scenarios that these loyal readers brought up are certainly possible – The best explanation was done by the Volokh Conspiracy (a law blog):

Let’s look at the bill. The rules for a “Wellness Program” begin on page 87. In brief, if you participate in a Wellness Program, you can get a health insurance premium discount of up to 30%. Stated another way, if you don’t participate in a Wellness Program, you will pay a substantial insurance rate penalty for not doing so.  The definition of a “Wellness Program” begins in paragraph (B) on page 88:

“(B) The wellness program shall be reasonably designed to promote health or prevent disease. A program complies with the preceding sentence if the program has a reasonable chance of improving the health of, or preventing disease in, participating individuals and it is not overly burdensome, is not a subterfuge for discriminating based on a health status factor, and is not highly suspect in the method chosen to promote health or prevent disease.”

Pages 29–30 mention some of items that “Wellness and Prevention Programs” “may include.” The phrasing does not appear to exclude other items. In any case, the item for “Healthy lifestyle support” is broad enough to include almost anything.

This definition is extremely broad, and the assertion that it is not broad enough to encompass gun ownership appears to be incorrect. There is a very large body of “public health” scholarship which claims to show that gun ownership is a very large health risk to the family that has a gun in the home. I believe that much of this scholarship is of poor quality, and some of it is mere junk science. However, the existence of dozens of articles in public health and medical journals would almost certainly be enough for an anti-gun definition of “Wellness Program” by the Dept. of Health and Human Services to pass the deferential Chevron standard of review.

A regulation which said that a Wellness Program may (or “shall”) include a discount for not owning a gun (or not owning a handgun, or not owning a so-called “assault weapon”, or for not owning more than a certain number of guns) might be argued to be “overly burdensome.” But there’s no guarantee that a reviewing court would consider a mere discount for people who don’t own guns to be “overly” burdensome on gun owners.

Pages 29–30 of the Reid bill mention some of items that “Wellness and Prevention Programs” “may include.” The phrasing does not appear to exclude other items. In any case, the item for “Healthy lifestyle support” is broad enough to include almost anything.

================================================================

Caught this last night – can anyone cite section / page number?

“The conservative group Gun Owners of America sent out an action alert to its 300,000 members on Friday warning that the Senate legislation would mandate that doctors provide "gun-related health data" to "a government database," including information on mental-health issues detected in patients, which could jeopardize their ability to obtain a firearms license.

In addition, the group said the legislation’s ‘wellness’ provisions — designed to encourage more healthful lifestyles — would allow federal officials to mandate that companies charge higher insurance premiums for employees who own guns.”

Own a gun, now you’re a higher risk?  Perhaps.  But there are FAR more riskier behaviors that are leading to higher percentages of adverse outcomes (e.g., drug abuse, sexual practices, et al) that are being given a pass?

Once again, this is not about healthcare – this is all about stealth control…

Thoughts?